Len Colby
-
Posts
7,478 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Len Colby
-
-
While I've always tried to stay open-minded on this subject, the more time I spend around actual photographers and film-makers, the more I'm convinced the technology, albeit in an infant stage, existed in 1964 to so cleverly fake a film, but that the technical skills did not.
Pat, did you actually ask any photographers or film-makers if it would have been possible to pull off the alterations that the contributors to Hoax claim were made?
Film-maker Mark Sobel, who has only spent 5 years of his life filming and editing his movie The Commission, has said publicly that the film could not have been faked as suggested. I have a close friend who is a film producer and music video director, and who is aware of all the visual gimmicks under the sun, and he laughs at the notion the film was faked.
Josiah Thompson and Robert Groden, two of the reseachers who pioneered the study of the Z-film, are also skeptical about any alteration. This of course makes them "the bad guys" to the alterationists.
Pat - You make it sound like Sobel only made one movie. Acording to IMDb he has directed 31 movies, TV series and episodes, editted three of those and worked as a cinephotograher and camera operator. Meanwhile Healy refuses to talk what composite work if any he has done.
-
As far as Whiz Kid McNamara, he totally screwed up, and admits it. He crunched some numbers early on that said there would be a point at which the North Vietnamese forces would begin shrinking, but then found out he was wrong and changed his mind. The CIA also had these numbers and honestly reported them in their reports. Johnson had access to these reports. He just chose to ignore them, and ordered the Pentagon to misrepresent the numbers in their reports. This was at the heart of the lawsuit brought against CBS by William Westmoreland. Both sides were right: CBS was right in that Westmoreland's figures grossly exaggerated enemies killed and enemy strength; Westmoreland was right in that he wasn't deceivng LBJ. In McNamara's In Retrospect, a remarkable book and the basis of The Fog of War, he admits that LBJ knew Westmoreland's numbers were cooked because LBJ himself had ordered them to be cooked in order to deceive congress. (At least that's how I remember it.) In any regard, he claims that LBJ was not deceived. Westoreland, by the way, never could accept that the North Vietnamese forces were growing in direct proportion to his own and like a good hawk insisted we were just around the corner from total victory. He'd insisted the same thing when there were 100,000 men, 200,000 men etc... all the way up to the half a mil it eventually became. His refusal to accept the failure of his command and his continued insistence that we were only 200,000 soldiers away etc. is part of the reason we're having this conversation now. He came home a total failure and insisted it was the fault of dem bureaucrats in Washington who tied his hands, etc. This myth has gained popularity over the years with those who have a hard time believing the great U.S. could ever make a mistake. Guess what? We did. And McNamara's book is the proof.
...
As stated several times previously, the treaty signed in 73 was almost identical to the one on the table in 68. So what were the last five years about? Richard Nixon getting elected. Twice.
The more one looks at it the more the current situation seems like a repeat of Vietnam. Substitute Bush for Nixon (regarding the election) and Rumsfeld and Chenny for Westmorland and McNamara, lower the number of troops "in country" and what you wrote could have been about Iraq.
-
Today I viewed in full "The Fog of War", a very interesting film that I recommend to those who have not seen it.
The film had a clip of Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican GOP convention, at which he said:
Make no bones of this. Don't try to sweep this under the rug. We are at war in Vietnam. And yet the President, who is Commander-in-Chief of our forces, refuses to say - refuses to say, mind you, whether or not the objective over there is victory. And his Secretary of Defense continues to mislead and misinform the American people, and enough of it has gone by.
The film makes clear that Goldwater was right...
Another one of your absurd postings. It should be remembered that Goldwater wanted to use nuclear weapons on North Vietnam. He also wanted to send US troops into Hanoi. Luckily the Americans never elected such an idiot as president. If he had been elected in 1964 we would probably have had a full-scale nuclear war with China. That is why Bush worries me so much, he thinks too much like Goldwater. However, I suppose that is why you like him so much.
To strike a middle ground here if Tim was only referring to the quote above Goldwater was right, LBJ. McNamara and the rest of the administration weren't being straight with the American people about the war, if Tim was referring to the Arizonan's positions in '64 he was absurdly wrong.
John - You seem to have it in for Tim, you even recently threatened to delete some of his threads. Despite disagreeing with him 90% of the time I find him to be a valuable member of this forum often bringing up interesting points. I think we can tolerate ONE conservative here (I know there are a few others but they rarely post). Compare your treatment of him to that of Lynne who has been a VERY disruptive presence here, starting numerous absurd threads and spamming others, insulting anyone who disagrees with her etc. etc. with nary a word on your part. If I'm not mistaken you did chide her a month or two ago but have been silent since. I find it hard to believe that if she were expounding conservative opinions she wouldn’t have gotten the boot (or at least been 'raked over the coals') a long time ago, but ideally members should be judged by their behavior not their ideology.
-
John,
Thanks for the interesting article
Len
My comments in bold
This article by Marie Cocco in Newsday (13th December, 2005) is worth reading as it links McCarthy's campaign in 1968 with the events in Iraq.When Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a decorated Vietnam veteran and longtime defense hawk, called recently for a quick withdrawal from Iraq, the White House denounced him as adopting the policies of "Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."
A GOP Congress woman even called him a coward as if wanting to send others to their deaths is an act of courage
...
You do not have to have backed McCarthy in 1968 to see the parallels to Vietnam, with its shifting military goals and the empty promise of "peace with honor." But there will not now be another McCarthy.
Hopefully she's wrong about that. I still have my hopes up for 2008 (and '06)
...
In truth, the bitter legacy of Eugene McCarthy - a man who stood on principle for a cause larger than himself - is that he has been succeeded in politics by men who lack principle, and have as their cause themselves.
This unfortunately is true, as much as I fevently backed Kerry my impression of him is that when it came to descions between principle and political expediency he all too often chose the latter
Many people criticized RFK for jumping into the race after McCarthy's success in NH for deviding the anti-war vote. I would be interested to hear the opinions of members of this forum.
-Was Kennedy wrong for entering the race?
-Could McCarthy have won the nomination and election if RFK hadn't entered the race?
Len
-
And Len, BTW, I have a double homicide attributable to Bundy, alledgedly his first, if you're interested.
BK
Hi Bill,
Are you refering to Ted or "Mac"? Either way my enquiring mind wants to know!
Len
-
While I've always tried to stay open-minded on this subject, the more time I spend around actual photographers and film-makers, the more I'm convinced the technology, albeit in an infant stage, existed in 1964 to so cleverly fake a film, but that the technical skills did not.
Pat, did you actually ask any photographers or film-makers if it would have been possible to pull off the alterations that the contributors to Hoax claim were made?
-
ROFL
Why, oh WHY would I debate someone, anyone claiming no knowledge of the subject at hand? That is IF I choose to debate in the first place! I suspect the contributors of HOAX feel the same. Peddle your ignorance elsewhere -- btw, have a nice holiday.
David
You find it easy to dismiss points you don't want to answer.
1) Cite one film made at the time of the assassination that used composite composition as undetectably as in the Z-film. If you can't that suggests that the technology or "know how" didn't exist at the time. Don't tell me to go look at some magazine or book or cite some obscure movie none of us will be able find, it the 'where with all' existed I'm sure Hollywood would have put it to good use.
2) Tell us YOUR credentials regarding composite filmmaking. For all I or the others know you are just a film maker who has read about such techniques. If you could post some composite images you actually made (using technology similar to what was available at the time) that would go a long way to establish your credebility as an expert on the subject. Your reluctance to do leaves one with the impresion that you haven't done any composite work and therefore have no qualifications as an expert on the subject.
3) What exactly are the qualifications of the other contibutors as photo analysts? IIRC the only one of you who even claimed any prior experience was Jack White, a "self-trained" expert with a dubious track record.
4) Rationalize why you haven't been able to come up with ONE recognized forensic photo analyst who backs your alteration claims. If the evidence is so telling I can't imagine there wouldn't be one out there who would want to make a name for himself (or herself).
5) Two of your principal "experts" have proposed ideas that even most CT minded Forum members would find absurd, doesn't this diminish their credibility.
6) You asked "Why, oh WHY would I debate someone, anyone claiming no knowledge of the subject at hand?". Why, oh Why should I or anyone else take a group of people who claim but are unable to demonstrate expertise seriously?
Len
-
I sort a like GC's odds and analysis.
GC was in on the original administrative meetings that okayed the anti-Castro Cuban raiders in the spring of 63- April
Pardon me for my ignorance but who is (was) GC that was from before I was born.
Does anyone have an address for Lisa Howard's NYC apartment? They should put a histoircal plaque there.If you really want to know the NYPL has a collection of old phone books, I don't know if she would have been listed.
I still wish I had known about this when Gene McCarthy was alive so I could have gotten his first hand impression of meeting Che.It's odd that the meeting is not more well known. I don't remeber seeing it mentioned in any of the obits I read.
LOL You should get some pre-ripped jeans and a saftey pinned jacket to 'match'! "Rebellion" as a mass-market consumor product, nothing is sacred any more.And I'm going to run out to the mall and get my Che t-shirt.BK
-
'Colby' dronned on and on and ....
Untrained experts and out right amateurs like Fetzer, White, Costella, Healy and Clark can study the Z-film frames all they want and point out supposed anomalies with out proving a thing.
dgh01: if I recall correctly you stated you have NO experience in composite film photo analysis. Which makes me wonder why you go through your concerted effort in debunking something you haven't a clue about. Now I understand the subject matter is difficult to comprehend, but rest easy, there are books out there for rank amateurs such as yourself to make the sledding a little easier. The jungle air doesn't do you well, perhaps!
No, I don't have any experience in composite film photo analysis but then again no one else in your cabal does either nor do I have experience forensic photo analysis but neither do you or any of your co-authors. Since I know little if anything about the field, I don't pretend to be an expert.
Costella who couldn't figure out how to photograph his own shadow so that it was diagonal to the film plane and who argued (like Jack White) that it's impossible to have shadows that aren't perfectly parallel when there is only one light source has zero training or previous experience in photo analysis but pretends to be an expert.
White claims to be a forensic photo expert despite having no training in the field. He often makes gross errors in his analysis.
You claim to be an expert but refused reply to Craig when he asked you about your own work. Doing so won't establish one way or the other if such alteration was possible back in '63 but would [if the work is well done] establish your credentials in composite film work. And if you have any actual forensic experience let us know.
Most (if not all) of their claims have already been debunked or are very much in dispute.dgh01: I await your scholary attempts, that's all they'll be, attempts! ROFL, maybe the Tinkster will give you a hand
I never claimed that I had debunked or found fault with any of the arguments made by you and your associates only that others had. One of several sites that does so is Assassinated Science, http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/, my computer which has most of my files and bookmarks if broken (I'm using a notebook) so I can't reference all the pages I found.
Fetzer et. al's work on the subject can hardly be considered scholarly, it wasn't peer reviewed, unlike David Wrone's book which I understand refutes many of the alteration claims.
What would be far more interesting would be if they could find a single recognized forensic photo analyst to support their claims. I imagine they've looked under rocks in the four corners of the globe, but they don't seem to have found one yet.dgh01: "interesting"? Who, praytell say they are dealing with this particular subject to entertain the likes of 'stumps' such as yourself -- YOU gotta be joking! So listen up, pal -- find yourself one, just one film compositing tech/technical director that will debund Costella's presentation, or mine for that matter.
Since you are making a controversial claim excepted by no experts and very few members of the JFK research community it's up to you to back your claims. If there is any truth to your claims the value of finding expert backing wouldn't just be to "entertain the likes of 'stumps' such as" me but to convince all the others who doubt your theories about alteration and perhaps arrive at the truth.
Don't try to switch the burden of proof, it up to you and you friends to back your claims not for doubters to disprove them.
Actually I could care less what you or anyone else thinks concerning the Zapruder film alteration - non alteration.If you truly didn't care why did you reply? Your feigned arrogance doesn't help your cause.
You, like most noise makers around here are too terrified to deal with published data/articles regarding the subject matter... I got a idea, publish a book on the subject, yeah, that's the ticket -- roflmao-I already asked you twice to cite a film made around the time of the assassination with comparable alteration, but you refuse to respond. The best you can do is tell me and others to read some articles or a book. Your inability to cite one leads me to believe that there are any. Pat's filmmaker and photographer friends left him with the impression that the know how to pull such an alteration didn't exist back then and that sounds about right to me.
- I'm not terrified of anything, I don't have anything invested one way or the other in the alteration debate and compared to most participants in this forum I'm only marginally interested in the assassination debate
- Your 'write a book" defense is getting old. I don't pretend to be an expert
They put credit in so many hair brained notions it's hard to take them seriously for example Jack believes thatdgh01: your sounding so much like Gary Mack, pitiful!
Interesting you didn't even try to debate that point. Judging people by their track records is quite reasonable.
-
Torture simply produces what the torturer, or their sponsor, wishes to hear. Quite apart from the moral dimension, its simply one of the most unproductive methods of information gathering you could think of. The thumb screw, rack and iron maiden could make Elizabethian prisoners confess to cavorting with the devil, or what ever, what they could not do was make the confession true. If you mimic the methods of your enemy, what then are you protecting?
This not just a touchy feely, politically correct, I am a lefty - liberal member of the Ed. Forum position. According to the New Yorker article cited by Robert
Perhaps surprisingly, the fiercest internal resistance to this thinking has come from people who have been directly involved in interrogation, including veteran F.B.I. and C.I.A. agents. Their concerns are as much practical as ideological. Years of experience in interrogation have led them to doubt the effectiveness of physical coercion as a means of extracting reliable information. They also warn that the Bush Administration, having taken so many prisoners outside the realm of the law, may not be able to bring them back in. By holding detainees indefinitely, without counsel, without charges of wrongdoing, and under circumstances that could, in legal parlance, “shock the conscience” of a court, the Administration has jeopardized its chances of convicting hundreds of suspected terrorists, or even of using them as witnesses in almost any court in the world.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6
So not only do they produce information of dubious quality, torture suspects can't be used as witness or brought to trial. Upon their release of course their stores provide incredibly bad PR for the US and only help groups like Al-Queda.
To answer Tim's question. If there is solid evidence that a suspect has pertinent information about an up coming attack I would swallow liberal pricipals and say do what it takes to make him talk.
-
Untrained experts and out right amateurs like Fetzer, White, Costella, Healy and Clark can study the Z-film frames all they want and point out supposed anomalies with out proving a thing. Most (if not all) of their claims have already been debunked or are very much in dispute.
What would be far more interesting would be if they could find a single recognized forensic photo analyst to support their claims. I imagine they've looked under rocks in the four corners of the globe, but they don't seem to have found one yet.
They put credit in so many hair brained notions it's hard to take them seriously for example Jack believes that:
George W. Bush’s very public use of the Hook’um Horns sign is really him secretly signaling to fellow members of the Skull and Bones “Death Cult”
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2996
Bushs Sr. and Jr.and the ex-head of the Mossad personally sabotaged JFK Jr.’s plane just before it crashed. Bill and Hillary were in on it also.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4974
Bush watched the first plane hit the North Tower of the WTC on a secret CCTV hook up in his limo on 9 ∕11.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=42453
Costella and Fetzer believe that the 6th Floor Museum’s webcam is part of some insidious plot to spy on JFK researchers in Dealy Plaza. Fetzer, Costella and White believe that rain sensors in the plaza are another part of this plot. Costella believes that the CIA sabotaged his shirts, razor and digital camera before a JFK conference (What kind of idiot puts a digital camera with highly important images on its memory card into checked baggage?) and that the teacher who substituted for him was really a CIA agent.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/160
http://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/rainsenless.html (the part about the naked man who stole Jack’s car is worth reading too)
-
Jack doesn't it seem odd to you that the "CNN" frame is sepia toned and hazy while all other shots of the towers show clear blue skies? Even the supposedly simultaneous "NBC" frame show this. Looks like a clear sign of alteration to me.
Also in light of all the evidence that yes of course Willis Carto is a Nazi, I repeat my question about your quoting his publications.
-
Maybe McCarthy was talking with Che about Cuban immigration.
Can anyone document any references whatsoever for McCarthy meeting Che, Tad and Lisa in NYC?
BK
Bill - I found this on the State Dept. site. I highly recomend reading the entire page it's facinating Szulc and dity tricks against Cuba are mentioned. Before you thank me I'd like to thank you if you hadn't brought it up I never would have found out about this
Len
(EDIT; To disable emoticons)
293. Memorandum of Conversation/1/
Washington, December 17, 1964.
/1/ Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL CUBA–US. Secret; Exdis. Drafted by Woods on December 18.
SUBJECT
Meeting with Che Guevara, Cuban Minister of Industry
PARTICIPANTS
Under Secretary George W. Ball
Senator Eugene McCarthy
Thomas C. Mann, Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs
R. E. Woods, Staff Assistant to the Under
Secretary Senator McCarthy outlined the main points of his December 16 conversation with Che Guevara, Cuban Minister of Industry. The meeting was arranged directly with the Senator by Lisa Howard and took place in her New York apartment.
The Senator said he believed the purpose of the meeting was to express Cuban interest in trade with the US and US recognition of the Cuban Regime. Mr. Ball agreed this was plausible, saying that because of the state of the Cuban economy, the Cuban Regime was interested in reviving its trade relations with the US to obtain convertible currency. Further, he felt that Guevara probably recognized that any dealings with the US would add respectability to the regime in the eyes of other Latin American States.
Guevara told Senator McCarthy the Alliance for Progress would fail because it merely underwrites vested interests and the status quo. He said that Venezuela and the Central American States in particular needed revolutions. Chile was one state that was undertaking reforms that might make a revolution unnecessary. He noted that Chile would recognize Cuba if it were not for United States pressure.
Guevara did not attempt to conceal the subversive activities which Cuba was undertaking. He explicitly admitted that they were training revolutionaries and would continue to do so. He felt that this was a necessary mission for the Cuban Government since revolution offered the only hope of progress for Latin America.
Guevara attacked United States' overflights but not in particularly belligerent terms. He said that Cuba had the means to shoot down the planes, but had not taken any action against the United States. He insisted that there was no juridical basis for the overflights and that such a juridical basis was not furnished by OAS approval. Guevara mentioned only one specific "violation of sovereignty", this being when a US helicopter landed "over the line" (presumably at Guantanamo). He said that in this case, after some talk of firing upon the helicopter, it was permitted to leave Cuban territory.
Guevara said he knew the CIA was in Cuba. He stated that most of Cuba's enemies worked for the oil and power companies. He said the regime could identify them and they in turn knew they would be shot if they resorted to sabotage.
Guevara took issue with a statement that Ambassador Stevenson had made that the US was not withholding shipments of drugs to Cuba. Mr. Mann commented that drug shipments may have been cut back and that this was one area in which the Cubans could score on us. Mr. Ball said there was no reason why we should not sell drugs or medicines to Cuba, and Mr. Mann said he would look into the matter.
Guevara told the Senator that while conditions in Cuba were not good, there was no question of the regime collapsing. On the question of refugees, he said Cubans who did not like life on the island were free to leave. Mr. Mann commented that this was not true. Guevara also said the regime did not want any refugees returned to Cuba.
On relations between the Government and the Catholic Church, Guevara said they were good but that Party members could not belong to the Church. He mentioned in passing that they had more problems with Protestants than with Catholics.
On free elections, Guevara said these had not taken place because the revolution had not fully evolved. As to what form of government might eventually develop in Cuba, Guevara said—with pointed reference to Senator McCarthy—there was no interest in a bicameral congress or in anything along the lines of the Supreme Soviet in the USSR. He commented that the latter had no real power.
Mr. Ball asked if any references were made to Cuba's relationship to Moscow. It was mentioned that Lisa Howard had made the point that better relations with the US would give Cuba a more desirable position vis-א-vis Moscow. Mr. Ball said he believed the USSR was becoming fed up with Cuba but felt compelled to continue supporting it because of its symbolic importance as the first country to go communist without pressure of the Red Army.
Mr. Ball emphasized the danger of meetings such as that which the Senator had had with Guevara. There was suspicion throughout Latin America that the US might make a deal with Cuba behind the backs of the other American States. This could provide a propaganda line useful to the Communists.
Mr. Ball pointed out that Guevara could not move about without a great many people knowing where he was and whom he was seeing. McCarthy agreed, mentioning the large number of police cars that had gathered when he met Guevara. Mr. Ball asked that McCarthy get in touch with him if any further contacts with Guevara were contemplated. Meanwhile it was essential that nothing be publicly said about the McCarthy–Guevara meeting although there was danger that Guevara himself might leak it.
294. Memorandum From Gordon Chase of the National Security Council Staff to the President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy)/1/
Washington, December 18, 1964.
/1/ Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Cuba, Contacts with Cuban Leaders, 5/63–4/65. Secret; Eyes Only. 2 See Document 293.
SUBJECT
Senator McCarthy/Che Guevara
1. John Crimmins gave me a brief read-out (reportedly, more details are to come)2 on the meeting Senator McCarthy had with George Ball about McCarthy's meeting with Che Guevara. After listening to McCarthy, State feels that the conversation was entirely Lisa-generated and that Che really had nothing to tell us. (My own pre-conversation odds, which I transmitted to State, where 7–5 that Che wanted to talk to us but less than even money that he would say anything new to us.)
2. Che exuded confidence with McCarthy.
(a) Latin America, with the possible exception of Chile, is going to collapse. Everything is ripening in Cuba's direction. The U.S. is on the wrong wicket and is going to lose.
(
Resumption of trade with the U.S. would be good but Cuba can get along without it. © The U.S. policy on drugs to Cuba is iniquitous. 3. If the McCarthy/Che conversation does become public, it could cause us some problems (e.g. in Latin America) since McCarthy will be viewed by some as an envoy from the Administration. Our line presumably will be to simply stick to the facts—i.e. that we don't control U.S. Senators and newspaperwomen; in this regard, the Senator did not ask for our recommendation before he had his talk with Guevara. About the only plus from the McCarthy/Che meeting is that it was probably an eye-opener for McCarthy.
GC
-
While I've always tried to stay open-minded on this subject, the more time I spend around actual photographers and film-makers, the more I'm convinced the technology, albeit in an infant stage, existed in 1964 to so cleverly fake a film, but that the technical skills did not. As Len suggests, there were no pre-1964 films with inserts and mattes as seamless as the Z-film. As a Valley kid growing up in the sixties, I would make a yearly trek down to Universal Studios, our local amusement park. While most kids were fascinated by The Munsters set or the Western stunt show, my favorite part as I remember was a demonstration on how Hitchcock filmed The Birds. This was state-of-the-art stuff; nevertheless, to today's critical eye, much of the action looks fake.
As most of you know by now, I spent two years analyzing the autopsy photos, x-rays, and z-film (for content, not so much for authenticity). I found that they are consistent and demonstrate the same wounds. I found that, furthermore, the timing of these wounds on the Z-film suggests (no, more than suggests--darn near PROVES) there was more than one shooter firing from behind. From this, I have come to the uncomfortable (and largely unpopular) opinion that all this study of photo alteration, x-ray alteration, and z-film alteration has been a HUGE RED HERRING. (No, I'm not accusing anyone of being a disinfo agent...) It's just that the Fox photos have been available to the research community for almost 20 years now, and most everyone has spent so much time trying to prove they are wrong (because they don't show what people want them to show) that little time has been spent on figuring out what they actually reveal. I'd like to think I've reversed that trend.
Pat - Since you are (or at least were) interested in the technology and have already closely studied the Z-film and the photographic record I would be curious to find out if you were convinced by the book and magazines cited by Dave Healy. In any case I am sure they will be a lot easier for you to find in LA than for me here in Brazil.
You seem level headed so I would trust your interpretation as to whether the book and magazine show that such an alteration was possible. Still if Dave can't cite a single film from the period my impression would be that such alteration might have been possible in theory but not in practice.
Actually I would be interested in the opinion of anyone (who didn't work with Fetzer) who looks at "Dave's" book and magazines as to whether they prove anything.
Len
P.S. I'm a nembie what are the 'Fox photos'
-
Oddly McCarthy supported Ronald Reagan in 1980 and backed the stratigic defense initive (Star Wars). In 2005, he was listed as a member of the board of advisors of the Federation for American Immigration Reform a right-wing anti-immigration group.
-
Hello Len,
I'm sure you've access to SMPTE [society of Motion Picture/Television Engineer] Society monthly periodoicals. They have a lengthy history. SMPE (as it was known before television) first act as a professional society was setting the standards for commercial 35mm film, in 1915. They've published (monthly) continuosly since then. Fielding's book cites SMPE documented compositing examples, hundreds of them. See the index. Any university of stature has them. You might want to read Raymond Fielding's: The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, Library of Congress Card Catalog #64-8116, 1965. Ray's book was reprinted in '68. A new edition came out within the past 10-15 years. Google the book title.
Lot's of pictures covering the black art of film compositing, how things we're done in the40's, 50's and 60's.
btw, no worries regarding 'forensic' photo analysis credentials regarding Fielding's book - even high school students understand it. Last I heard Fielding still teaches at the university level in Florida somewhere, did some consulting work for KODAK (I think it was KODAK, if I'm wrong sorry, Ray) along the way, too!
Dave I asked you specificly for examples not references to a book (or by extension a magazine). I'll check my local libraries but I doubt the magazine you refer to is available here (I'm in Brazil remember). May be to convince us all you could scan and post some frames or better yet cite some movies that we could rent at our local video stores. If such techniques were so common you should have no problem citing various examples.
The question of photo analysis creds was directed at Shanet.
-
The question isn't: did "I" have the technical skills, know-how, and was the equipment available to alter the Z-film in 1963-'64? You know that, don't you? Of course the answer is; there was abundant talent available to do that type of job -- I come a bit later, 7 years later
If that's true Dave, I'm sure you could cite various examples of films made back in '63 - '64 which used composting so undetectably. One reason I find theories of alteration hard to believe is that even decades later composting in big budget Hollywood movies appears faked to the naked eye let alone withstand close scrutiny and frame by frame analysis.
I don't care what some guy wrote in a book, I am interested in actual examples
The more I study it, the more I believe FETZER.The anomalies are problematic.
Shanet - Please fill us in on your experience training in forensic photo analysis or in photography and filmmaking in general
-
Cheney and Rumsfeld are the chief suspects in the events of 911
They are the "chief suspects" of a small fringe group. The evidence doesn't back such suspicions.
How did the planes end up flying into the WTC and Pentagon?
-
If you cannot see the NBC peacock logo in the corner, so
much for your observations.
Jack
Jack
I know you are familiar with PhotoShop, how long do you think it would take someone to add that logo? 2 - 3 min. if they knew what they were doing? The frame obviously has been altered or do you want us to believe the labels where put there by NBC?
You also have not answered the crucial question of when the frame was taken nor have you answered Steve's questions or provided evidence that the CNN frame was taken at 9:03.
I'm also waiting for your reply to question 3
"You have yet to come up with one civil engineer or architect from anywhere in the World who supports your claims about WTCs 1 & 2. As far as I can tell none do, not even ones from countries like Iran and Cuba which are hostile to the US, why do you suppose that is?"
I first asked you that a few months ago.
Len
-
Now I get it. Anyone who is anti-Israel is a nazi.
Jack
There was only one mention of Israel in the article I posted.
"The Spotlight ran articles claiming that Auschwitz victims were cremated to control typhoid, that the "gas chambers" were actually life-saving delousing showers, that the Diary of Anne Frank was a hoax and that Jews created the six million number to convince the United Nations to support the creation of Israel. "
it also contained this quote
"Hitler's defeat was the defeat of Europe. And of America. . . . The blame . . . must be laid at the door of the international Jews."
-- Willis Carto
So if you think quoting Carto's publications boosts your case go ahead. Don't you think that by doing so you help make him more respectable?
What if someone who was challenging your "theories" quoted neo-Nazi publications to back their arguments?
-
Pearson acknowledged that he had not even read these books at the time but had received "reports" of their great value, probably from Willis Carto, who had been organizing a campaign, centered around Cox's work, to stop the "niggerfication of America."
…
Yockey viewed Jews as "Culture Distorters," intent on destroying Western civilization; his book, Imperium, dedicated to "the Hero of the Second World War" (i.e., Adolf Hitler), has been called the bible of the contemporary Nazi community, "a neo-Mein Kampf for neo-Nazis," and Carto bragged that he had himself contributed Imperium's "brilliant Introduction."
…
In place of the fired instructors, all of whom had the appropriate doctorate and favorable teaching evaluations, Pearson hired Swan, an ex-convict who had never completed his doctorate and was unemployable elsewhere, and Kuttner, fresh from his Pioneer-subsidized position in Shockley's lab, a biochemist who taught anthropology at USM despite having no relevant training or qualification in the discipline beyond Willis Carto's observation that he was an "extremely valuable man for our side, and a racist to his toes."
…
As one of the featured speakers at the annual conference of the Institute for Historical Review—the revisionist organization founded by Willis Carto, the patron saint of Holocaust denial—Whitney identified the source of the egalitarian conspiracy, explaining to an audience filled with Holocaust deniers and Nazi sympathizers that Jews were using the same tactics in science as they had used to invent the Holocaust: creating a "fake" to advance their own interests.
…
the most popular magazines among AR's readers included five neo-Nazi publications: Wilmot Robertson's Instauration, Willis Carto's Spotlight, Ed Fields's Truth at Last, William Pierce's National Vanguard, and the Journal of Historical Review, dedicated to Holocaust denial.*
…
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/tucker/ch4.html
* AR = Aryan Resistance, the Spotlight was the tabloid that accused Hunt. Carto was also the publisher of the Journal of Historical Review.
David Duke's National Conference in New Orleans, LA, May 28-30, 2004 assembled together the largest number of distinguished White Rights LEADERS I've ever seen together during my 35 years as an activist and leader. I'll list some of them:
David Duke, Don Black, Willis Carto, James Kelso, Attorney Sam Dickson, Dr Edward Fields, Kevin Strom, John Tyndall, Bob Whitaker, Germar Rudolf, Paul Fromm, Attorney Edgar Steele, Roy Armstrong, David Pringle, Howie JFarrell, Kenny Knight, James Edwards, Ron Doggett and James Warner.
(From the American White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc. Forum Index)
http://64.233.179.104/search?sourceid=navc...feb10ccddda8df7
IR: Do you have a sense of how and why Carto got into the radical right?
Blodgett: He told me that he was never racially conscious at all ý "except," and this is a quote, "for the normal stuff, like hating niggers" ý until he worked for Procter & Gamble as a bill collector in California in the early '50s. And he said Jewish people were even better than the blacks at avoiding having to pay.
I think a lot of his attitudes were formed in the days of the White Citizens Councils, after the 1954 Supreme Court decision [outlawing "separate but equal" public schools].
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport...cle.jsp?pid=523
Now I get it. Anyone who is anti-Israel is a nazi.Jack
No people who praise Hitler, associate with the Klan, Nazi etc. deny the Holocaust, say Jews control the World, and call African Americans Niggers etc. are. Do you know how to read?
-
For more about Carto and his ties to the American Nazi Party, George Wallace and other fashists read this article.
http://www.buildingdemocracy.org/reports/B...s_color_web.pdf
-
Jack
1- Provide evidence this shot was from NBC.
2 - One of the central questions is timing when was this supposed NBC frame taken. Can you substantiate when it was taken and wasn't altered?
3- You have yet to come up with one civil engineer or architect from anywhere in the World who supports your claims about WTCs 1 & 2. As far as I can tell none do, not even ones from countries like Iran and Cuba which are hostile to the US, why do you suppose that is?
4 - Why do you quote neo-Nazi sites like AFP do you find them credible? What about their claims that the Holocaust was a hoax, do you find those credible too? AFP is published by Willis Carto try googling his name.
Jack you are one making claims it is incumbant on you to offer evidence that they are true. Much to your buddy Fetzer's chagrin I backed my challenges to his theories with evidence.
Calling Carto a neo-nazi makes no sense. His publication exposed
the role of the CIA in the JFK assassination.
Well known neo-nazis Cheney and Rumsfeld are the chief suspects
in the events of 911.
So Carto = Cheney/Rumsfeld?
Hmmmmm.
Jack
Gee Jack I'm glad you know what you're talking about!!!!! LOL
1. Cheney and Rumsfeld are rightwing asshole extemists but they aren't neo-Nazi's obviously. If you have any evidence to the contrary lets hear it
2. Carto doesn't like the CIA because he believes it like the rest of the Federal Government is controlled by the Jews
3. IIRC the Spotlight accused E. Howard Hunt of involvement in the assassination(with out substantiation) but didn't mention the CIA. People (you included I think) suspected the CIA long before your Nazi hero published that article.
4. As for Carto not being a Nazi read below
Willis A. Carto: Fabricating History
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If Satan himself... had tried to create a... force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews."
-- Willis Carto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officially the "Treasurer" of the Washington, DC-based Liberty Lobby, Willis Allison Carto is the group's founder and driving force. Over the group's 40-year history, Carto has come into contact with virtually every significant figure on the radical right and he remains perhaps the most influential professional anti-Semite in the United States.
In 1955, Carto announced that he was organizing "a lobby for patriotism," which eventually became known as Liberty Lobby — presently the most influential right-wing extremist propaganda organization in the United States. Although Carto is Liberty Lobby's founder and leader, he typically directs the group's operations from behind the scenes. For example, in an August 15, 1993, letter to The Washington Post Book World — itself a rare instance of Carto appearing in a non-Liberty Lobby forum — the veteran hatemonger described himself as "an officer and (low-paid) employee" of the organization he created. Shunning attention, he rarely speaks in public, generally refuses to be interviewed, and even keeps his name off the masthead of Liberty Lobby's weekly tabloid, The Spotlight. His official title of "Treasurer" greatly understates the scope of his authority.
While running Liberty Lobby from the shadows, Carto established a network of extremist publications and organizations. In 1966, he acquired control of the magazine American Mercury, originally associated with H.L. Mencken, and transformed it into a quarterly journal of anti-Semitic propaganda. He issued it in tandem with the bimonthly Washington Observer Newsletter, similarly laced with anti-Semitism. Both are now defunct. Previously, Carto had founded Western Destiny (also defunct), a magazine which during the 1960s produced racist, Nazi-tinged articles; and Noontide Press, which continues to publish and offer for sale anti-Jewish and pro-Nazi books.
One such book was Francis Parker Yockey's 600-page Imperium, which was dedicated to Adolf Hitler and featured a 35-page introduction written by Carto himself. Yockey, an outspoken admirer of Hitler, was arrested in San Francisco in 1960 on passport fraud charges and subsequently committed suicide in prison. His book offers a rehash of Nazi doctrine -- it denounced, for example, "the Church-State-Nation-People-Race of the Jew" as "distorters of culture."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hitler's defeat was the defeat of Europe. And of America. . . . The blame . . . must be laid at the door of the international Jews."
-- Willis Carto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yockey's ideology pervades the propaganda of Liberty Lobby and its off-shoots, such as the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), which specializes in Holocaust-denial propaganda, and the Populist Party, a far-right political vehicle. This extremist agenda persists among these groups in spite of the fact that the Populist Party -- since renamed the American Nationalist Union -- and IHR have broken from Carto and the Liberty Lobby network. Under oath during proceedings connected with an unsuccessful Liberty Lobby lawsuit against ADL in 1979, Carto admitted to remaining faithful to the tenets of Yockey's neo-Nazi philosophy.
As deep as his attachment to Yockey is Carto's antipathy toward Jews. (A racist as well as an anti-Semite, Carto complained during the 1950s that "only a few Americans are concerned about the inevitable niggerfication of America.") In October 1966, the late columnist Drew Pearson published the contents of a letter written by Carto which stated:
"Hitler's defeat was the defeat of Europe. And of America. How could we have been so blind? The blame, it seems, must be laid at the door of the international Jews. It was their propaganda, lies and demands which blinded the West to what Germany was doing. . . . If Satan himself, with all of his superhuman genius and diabolical ingenuity at his command, had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews."
In a subsequent memo, Carto elaborated on these beliefs:
"Who is using who [sic]? Who is calling the shots? History supplies the answer to this. History tells us plainly who our Enemy is. Our Enemy today is the same Enemy of 50 years ago and before -- and that was before Communism. The Communists are 'using' the Jews we are told. . . . [W]ho was 'using the Jews 50 years ago --100 or 1,000 years ago. History supplies the answer. The Jews came first and remain Public Enemy No. 1."
Carto's anti-Semitism was further manifested in the Institute for Historical Review, which he founded in 1979 to spearhead a movement to deny the reality of the Holocaust and to market Holocaust-denial propaganda. Carto was aided at the start by William David McCalden, a racist and anti-Semitic British publicist who -- using the alias Lewis Brandon -- served as IHR director until 1981 (when he left due to differences with Carto). Based in Costa Mesa, California, the IHR operated under a guise of scholarship and published spurious "revisionist" studies laced with anti-Semitic themes in its quarterly Journal of Historical Review and the now-discontinued IHR Newsletter. Carto promoted the Institute, contributors to its publications and Holocaust denial generally in The Spotlight and on "Radio Free America." A 15-page "Holocaust supplement" in the December 24, 1979, issue of The Spotlight included headlines that amplified Carto's unique rendition of the holiday spirit: "Were Six Million Jews Exterminated?" "Famous 'Gas Chamber Victims' Living Well," "Need $50,000? Find a Holocaust Victim," "Torture Used to Make Germans 'Confess.'" As Deborah Lipstadt has noted, The Spotlight ran articles claiming that Auschwitz victims were cremated to control typhoid, that the "gas chambers" were actually life-saving delousing showers, that the Diary of Anne Frank was a hoax and that Jews created the six million number to convince the United Nations to support the creation of Israel.
Carto was also able to gather virtually all of the world's foremost deniers at IHR's annual conferences, as well as surviving Nazis, children of Nazis, anti-Jewish polemicists not known for their views about the Holocaust and nonracist iconoclasts (like Hitler biographer John Toland and journalist John Sack). Carto set the tone for these events with his remarks at the organization's first conference in 1979, calling the Holocaust "atrocity propaganda" and declaring Zionists to be "predators" who exploit the "guilt" of the West and "offer us expiation for the sins of our fathers by giving us the magnificent opportunity to contribute to the building of God's promised land for God's chosen people with our tax money."
In September 1993, the Institute's editorial staff and board of directors voted to terminate its association with its founder. On October 4, 1993, Carto received a letter announcing that he had been "fired." According to court documents, the falling-out stemmed from the purchase of a new Cadillac by Carto's wife using IHR funds, Carto's purchase of an insufficient insurance policy prior to a 1984 arson that destroyed IHR's warehouse and offices, his skimping on pay and health benefits and his "launching and subsequent mishandling of the reward offer" in the Mel Mermelstein affair. The latter referred to a civil judgment successfully brought against IHR by Auschwitz survivor Mermelstein after the Institute failed to pay him a $50,000 "reward" it had offered for "proof" that the Nazis had operated execution gas chambers during World War II. (The 1985 court judgment forced IHR to pay both the $50,000 reward and an additional $40,000 for pain and suffering.) IHR's director at the time, Tom Marcellus, also alleged that Carto planned to redesign the Journal for Historical Review into a more straightforwardly racist publication.
The most significant stake in this controversy was control of as much as $10 million in stock certificates bequeathed to IHR's parent corporation, The Legion for the Survival of Freedom, by Jean Farrel, an heir of Thomas Edison. The summer before Carto's "dismissal," Marcellus reportedly discovered a $100,000 bank order for Liberty Lobby drawn from the Farrel bequest. According to Marcellus, Carto had directed his wife to set up a corporation for the sole purpose of controlling Farrel's money and loaning it back to the Legion -- thus making the Legion a less attractive target for potential lawsuits. Because the IHR defined itself as the Legion, the senior staffers demanded control of the money bequeathed to the parent company. Marcellus discovered that while Carto had long claimed to be merely the corporation's "agent," the Legion listed as a corporate director a person who had been dead for five years; the board had never met; and Carto was the sole and controlling voice. Marcellus and his colleagues and lawyer were able to assemble a new board that terminated all association with Carto.
Carto's immediate response was to arrange a meeting with the IHR principals and their lawyer. While they waited for Carto at the lawyer's office, he went instead to IHR headquarters with his wife and three others and began disconnecting telephones, changing locks and tampering with computers; he also faxed the IHR attorney, stating that he was "now in control of the IHR office." A scuffle ensued, and he was ultimately dragged from the premises by police as he screamed, "You're killing me."
As the dispute entered a long and complicated litigation that would involve several lawsuits -- and prompt a relentless campaign of vituperation and false rumor by Carto -- The Spotlight announced in August 1994 that Liberty Lobby was launching a new publication devoted to historical revisionism called The Barnes Review (after the 20th century revisionist historian Harry Elmer Barnes). In a Spotlight editorial, Carto stated:
Real news, like real history, is very controversial in this day of the politicization of both. So what is more appropriate than for The Barnes Review to be assisted by the staff of the one American newspaper, The Spotlight, which has proven...to be far ahead of the rest of the news media in reporting events...which are habitually hushed up by that same media which touts myth and lies as history?
Fortune has not smiled on Carto in recent years. On November 15, 1996, California Superior Court Judge Runston G. Maino ruled in favor of IHR, saying Carto owed the group and the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, $6.43 million of the estimated $7.5 million bequeathed by Farrel. Judge Maino further characterized Carto's role in the proceedings: "I found that much of his testimony made no sense; much of his testimony in court was different from his previous testimony; much of his testimony was contradicted by other witnesses or by documents. By the end of the trial I was of the opinion that Mr. Carto lacked candor, lacked memory, and lacked the ability to be forthright about what he did honestly remember."
In response to the decision, both Carto and Liberty Lobby filed for bankruptcy. After three years of legal and extralegal maneuverings to slow or avoid making debt payments and, allegedly, to shield his assets in corporate shells, a series of Federal Bankruptcy Court decisions in June and July 2001 forced him to relinquish control over The Spotlight and Liberty Lobby. He also lost the Washington, D.C., offices Liberty Lobby had occupied for 40 years. Hardly slowing, Carto and his associates produced a rejiggered version of The Spotlight in August called the American Free Press.
-
Jack
1- Provide evidence this shot was from NBC.
2 - One of the central quetions is timing when was this supposed NBC frame taken. Can you substantiate when it was taken and wasn't altered?
3- You have yet to come up with one civil engineer or architect from anywhere in the World who supports your claims about WTCs 1 & 2. As far as I can tell none do, not even ones from countries like Iran and Cuba which are hostile to the US, why do you suppose that is?
4 - Why do you quote neo-Nazi sites like AFP do you find them credible? What about their claims that the Holocaust was a hoax, do you find those credible too? AFP is published by Willis Carto try googling his name.
Jack you are one making claims it is incumbant on you to offer evidence that they are true. Much to your buddy Fetzer's chagrin I backed my challenges to his theories with evidence.
Zapruder Film Alteration
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Dave -
-Talking about ducking I'm still waiting for you to tell me about;
1) Any movies made around the time of the assassination (or even a few years later in light of Frank's post) that were altered in a way similar to the Z-film.
2) Any work you've done (not read about, done) involving composites using technology similar to what was available back then.
-Do you think distorting the truth will get you anywhere: Obviously "the Bad Guys" (Tink and Groden etc.) don't back the LNT or SBT
- The "non-alterationists" say that Zavaada authenticated the Z-film what's YOUR spin?