Dean Hagerman

Huh? How can you "highly recommend" a book that you have not read?

I dont take this guy serious at all Martin, he is a joke

Weak /D.H./.

Hey Francois Coli, did you name your dog Nungesser or the Maginot Line? Which failure did you choose for the name?

Everybody except 12 jurors

Who knows. Its just baseless speuclation like your original claim. And just like yours its meanningless. Craig is speculating?! The sky must be falling! Dean, I used the ABSURD the illustrate the ABSURD. Clearly, like most things, the point was LOST on you. Thats ABSURD!

Thanks for pointing out the obvious

Who knows. Its just baseless speuclation like your original claim. And just like yours its meanningless. Craig is speculating?! The sky must be falling!

I want Joan Crawford to clean my house, I have 100s of wire hangers

My favorite Matte work in a film is by far from "Ghostbusters" This Youtube clip kind of sucks to see the Matte work, but here it is But they created a 360 degree Matte of New York City all around the stage, the skyline looks real, with blinking lights, amazing looking buildings, as well as the changing sky, and the top of the building that they are on I am not using "Ghostbusters" as proof of alteration, just stating that I love the Matte work

How do you know? Just making crap up from thin air again? So no frames were removed from that film? You tell me...thats your claim. Im asking you, do you think no frames were removed? From the master of that film....no Why do you think that?

How do you know? Just making crap up from thin air again? So no frames were removed from that film? You tell me...thats your claim. Im asking you, do you think no frames were removed?

How do you know? Just making crap up from thin air again? So no frames were removed from that film?

Jerry if a single frame was removed from that 1928 film then that means that its altered Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed Just like the limo turn being taken out of the Z-film If a frame(s) have been removed that means the film was altered

I can see that!

There would be a ton of techincal problems if I tried to become a Supreme Court Justice

If you have NEVER done anything even similar how can you know if what is being described...AND WHAT YOU CLAIM TO "BELIEVE", is really correct? It's not ludicrous at all. It's a technical problem. If you don't have the proper techincal background, how can YOU properly judge what it is you are reading? Unless of course your just "BELIEVE" Really? So in your world I would have to be a Supreme Court Justice to know how the Supreme Court works? See how silly you sound

No So you really DON'T understand. I'm not suprised. So you have to have "hands on" experience to understand anything? That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard

No

oh Francois, you silly goose you, you haven't an iota of (circa. 1963) technical film lab knowledge. Posting the above utter nonsense is an embarrassment to decent lone nut discussion concerning the subject. So sit down and watch Lamson get his due.... p.s. the alleged in-camera Zapruder film is SUSPECT suck-it-up, son. Yeah, sure ! And Elvis Presley is alive, too. Keep dreaming. /François Carlier/ Weak

My math skills far exceed that of what you could ever imagine Sorry, you can't even add 1.25 plus 1.25 plus .5. No need to imagine at all. We can see it firsthand. Now about your understanding those processes.... Do you? Yes

Boom! Well said Chris