David G. Healy

Well....since NO ONE will once again address my question after having probably asked it 100 or more times......I take it that my speculation is apparently correct !

Charles, either you cannot understand the answer because this exact thing has been addressed in several threads already or you have chosen not to hear it. Your question was as follows;

"WHY....cannot the most brilliant minds on this Earth.....with totally unlimited resources and space age equipment, NOT figure out a way to alter a simple piece of 8mm Kodacolor film?"

The answer is as simple as to why there was no space shuttle in 1963/64. What answer do you not understand out of the following ....

* Zapruder had the foresight to remain with his camera original film and upon having three copies made of it on the afternoon of the assassination - ABRAHAM KEPT ONE WITH HIM even after loaning two out to the FBI, the SS, and then Life Magazine on the following day. Nothing short of magic would allow the best minds in the world to be able to alter a film that Zapruder kept with himself. After all, one cannot alter a film unless they have acess to ALL the copy prints or else the house of cards will certainly come falling down.

* The window of time to have done all these alterations was not there. Healy stated that the original film may have been destroyed on the first day, but the fact is that Zapruder kept his original film with him (not to mention the first genertation copy print). By Sunday, Life Magazine was publishing numerous film frames from the Zapruder film, but Zapruder still had his first generation print.

* NO ONE knew if all the assassination films and photos of the assassination had been acounted for. In fact, Muchmore's film wasn't even known to exist until the following Monday and was shown on television before the Feds ever knew it existed. Now I ask, wouldn't the smartest minds in the world be sharp enough to realize the danger of this potential problem?

* I reported that the so-called smartest people in the world with all the resources available had allegedly failed in making a perfect "BackYard Photo" of Oswald and they had only one to four pictures to alter, so is it your position that they were so inept to fail miserably on a still photo, but were magicians with film which was a far more complicated matter? My position is that one cancels out the other and that it cannot be both ways.

* The problem with Kodachrome film and why one cannot produce the same images after alteration was covered in another thread. Such things as loss of sharpness of the image, color shifting, and grain appearence from blowing-up images and then shrinking them back down the old fashion way was not possible to do without experts detecting what has happened. Some basic insights on thisw matter can be seen on the attached links. The best link with grain examples is not up at this time, but it was copied and pasted in an earlier thread concerning possible Zfilm alteration. Go back and review it and hopefully it will give you a better insight to the matter.

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Photograph.html

http://en.mimi.hu/photography/grain.html

Bill Miller

roflmfao! You actually get paid, keep a straight face then post this nonesense?

David

Till forensic testing is done on the alleged Zapruder in-camera original film currently housed at NARA, you can post a million words in support of the films validity, be my guest. BEST you can do is maintain *status quo*

David, the Zfilm has been examined by more than one expert in one field and has been declared to be the camera original. The points made in favor of those findings have seemingly been over your head or not satisfactory for your level of paranoia, so who will scientifically test the film, David? The reason I point this out is that what ever findings are discovered in relation to the film being authentic - all someone like yourself has to do is then question the veracity of the examiner. It's a never ending game to be played by people who have nothing better to do IMO. Now, valid points that have been raised must now be answered before one can even get to your position over film testing and that is for you to explain how the alterations took place (the old fashion way) and how were they done so not to be detectable by modern standards. It was the smartest thing Zapruder could have done when he had copies made before anyhing could get wrecked and it was even smarter that he kept the best copy print with him. So please tell this forum how one can alter a copy of a print that they never had in their possession???????????? Your position takes on the notion that it didn't matter if Zapruder had his copy with him and I am telling you that to have a cause of probable action, you must first have opportunity because after all - it was you who mentioned what a court of law would think when looking at the allegations of alteration.

Who added Zapruder and Sitzman to the pedestal? Hell, nobody can positively ID either of the two [if it is one, two or three] who appear on the pedestal... You're *daft*, or drinking too much -- further, who said Disney Studio's produced flawless animation? Only the naieve think Disney Studiosis the only place on earth [circa. 1963] film special effects could be applied/performed?

Disney Studio was the best of the best, David ... and Disney Studio was the who was mentioned in the book you keep telling people to read. It is your evidence that has fallen short, so show a hint of class and admit it. (Oh that is right, you have admitted it more than once, then denied it, then admitted it, and then denied it once again despite there being a forum archive recording your past statements.)

You're avoiding like the plague the 80 or so commercially released film examples I posted above, get out the minions...

To date, you have not shown that any of your examples has gone undetected to modern scientific examination. If you have such information, then by all means feel free to share it. It is not my job to let someone like yourself to just throw names out there in hopes something sticks.

BTW, I need to know where you obtained the Mary Poppins film frames you posted, the source please...? I've asked you this multiple times, NO answer-what's the big deal?[/color]

The people who wrote the book "Hoax" and mentioned the Mary Poppins film is who you should be asking for that information. Once you get their copy, then you can do what I did to test the accuracy of your use of that particular movie.

Bill Miller

Listen guy, Disney studios did animation, cartoons - PERIOD. You want to contest that, hey break a leg.

The people who wrote the book HOAX said what? Well, I'm one of those, did I mention the film Mary Poppins, was that me? If NOT then WHO, What was their source? We need your sources, Bill!

For someone thats making so much hay over the film Mary Poppins, why don't YOU tell me what's the matter with the Poppins frames you've posted? For all I know, matting for those frames are fine, perhaps the projector in the aerial printer chain wasn't positioned correctly, YET -- That's why when you do research Bill, and make claims regarding things you've no proveable expertise in, we need to question your thoroughness, we need your documentation, your sources, in order to validate your claim....

We're way beyond Disney cartoons, regarding Z-film alteration -- I suspect you haven't a clue about film composing/composition, nor the reason why it was so important to the film industry -- You might find that and other reasons WHY in Ray Fieldings 1963-64 book, you know the book I refer too in my article, which I'm sure you haven't read -- right along with not reading HOAX.... so don't let me interrupt you making a fool out of yourself.

p.s. I don't know of ANY film undergoing "modern day scrutinizing", you know of any commercially released films involved with assassinations?

*********

And Charlie Black -- you're right on target... we invented the transistor, went to the moon, during that decade and Lone Nutter's think we can't alter a piece of film...? ROFLMFAO

Perhaps David & others would appreciate it if this topic were brought back onto it's tracks.

Being the proverbial "Doubting Thomas", I have always found it most curious that:

Time/Life could produce a 35mm slide from the Zapruder film which had great clarity and definition.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0112b.htm

When in fact (reportedly), in it's original state, the camera original did not contain such clarity and definition.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z188.jpg

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0012a.htm

Question for David???----Exactly how is it that one makes a clear slide from a "fuzzy" original?

a] Time-Life could not produce a 35mm slide of a 8mm Z-frame with MORE clarity-definition than the in-camera original 8mm frame, impossible...

b] then the camera original reviewed/scrutinized was NOT the ACTUAL in-camera...

c] one doesn't print a "clear", read in-focus, 35mm frame from a "fuzzy" 8mm in-camera original frame...

In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...

Also, you wrote: "The point being, that those who persist in rejecting the alterationist claims, have no grounds whatsoever for concluding that by so doing, it verifies the authenticity of the film, and that's it in a nutshell; nor can they prove that the fim is authentic (question # 2). All they can do is engage in tub-thumping rejectionist rhetoric and trotting out testimonials to the so-called 'experts'"

The above remark is a sign of ignorance concerning what is actually being claimed in the name of Zfilm alteration. If I understand the comment correctly, Ed says that if a claim of alteration is questioned, then the claim must be true. For instance, the Mary Poppins example clearly shows that 1964 technology did not allow Disney Studios to produce a flawless film alteration. Another example was the rejection that someone had merely painted in Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. We went to the NBC footage and found that Moorman's photo was filmed for TV not 30 minutes following the assassination while Mary's photo was still in her possession and it shows the pedestal to have two people standing on it, thus the claim someone addd Zapruder and Sitzman to the pedestal was pure hogwash due to a lack of knowledge of the photographical record. So in the final analysis, it is Ed who has no grounds for saying what he did other than he simply is oblivious to the evidence that has been presented to date.

Bill Miller

dgh: wow, you're working in overdrive this holiday season.... LOL.

Till forensic testing is done on the alleged Zapruder in-camera original film currently housed at NARA, you can post a million words in support of the films validity, be my guest. BEST you can do is maintain *status quo*

Who added Zapruder and Sitzman to the pedestal? Hell, no one can positively ID either of the two [if it is one, two or three who appear on the pedestal...] You're either *daft*, or drinking too much -- and further, who said Disney Studio's produced flawless animation? Only the naive think Disney Studios is the only place on earth [circa. 1963] where film special effects could be applied/performed?

You're avoiding like the plague the 80 or so commercially released film examples I posted above, get out the minions...

BTW, I need to know where you obtained the Mary Poppins film frames you posted, the source please...? I've asked you this multiple times, NO answer-what's the big deal?

You are absolutely correct ! So I will alter my question. Could the best technology on earth NOT alter in an undectable way this strip of 8mm.

Yes, I am happy that some researcheres see the diffefrence between saying a piece of film could be altered compared to saying a piece of film could have been altered to escape modern day scientific study. In the book "Hoax", it referenced the Mary Poppin's movie of 1964 and the animations offered as proof of whether altering a film was possible at that time. It was believed that Disney Studio's had the best of the best working for them and it was not overnight or even in a matter of days as the alterationist must believe the Zapruder film was altered, Disney had months to create their animations and when played at normal speed - a person cannot see the tell-tale signs of fakery, but when the frames are broken down and reviewed with close scrutiny and by only using the untrained naked eye ... the signs of the alteration are quite easily spotted. The alleged proof for alteration of the assasination films and photos have not stood up to follow-up investigations. (see below) Can nyou see thye changing shoe sole thickness taking place on the turtles backs and the outline of Julie Andrews in the bottom example? There are more signs, but this was Disney's best effort in 1964 and it was offered as proof of possible Zfilm altering in the "Hoax" book.

Bill Miller

roflmfao -- keep it up! offered as proof? lmao. You forgot my examples......see you in about a year... and before you done with this thread, show us where you got the clips to Mary Poppins, hell you could of been busy these past few months.... never know. lol

dgh: oh, I don't know. if, IF the extent Z-film got to a court of law LOL, I suspect the hue and cry would be so loud, 'especially from the Dallas area', we'd need earmuffs all the way out here in the desert... That film is the crux of the case for the Lone Assassin in the TSBD... if the film was altered [for WHATEVER reason], the WCR is a falsehood...

The WC's report is a falsehood IMO if one actually rationally examines what it has said and why and it can be shown to be so without trying to create another falsehood. If you are going to consider scenarios on how a court of law is going to view the evidence, then please keep in mind that the same court of law requires 'probable cause' just to have the opportunity for the case to be heard. So far there has been NOTHING of factual basis presented by anyone to cause a grand-jury believe the Zfilm was altered. Those of us who look at these alteration claims try and do so from an informed perspective as a jury would be instructed to do so because we want accountability ..... and while I would like nothing more than for someone to expose an altered Zapruder film to the world - the evidence for that to happen has not been presented to date.

Frankly, if the Z-film was altered, I suspect the original duble 8mm film that ran through Zapruder's camera Nov 22nd 1963 was destroyed within day's of the assassination, only a ego the size of Dallas would insist on keeping a print of the in-camera ORIGINAL

Once again you have said something that could be possible, but there is no evidence that it was done. In fact, even if the original film had been destroyed the first day, you have not explained why those people who saw it the first day have not claimed it has been altered. Furthermore, no one has explained how then did someone make the changes to the first generation print that Zapruder held back and kept in his possession. After all, if the original film has been altered and/or then destroyed .... how does one not only deal with those individuals who have already seen it and when could they have swapped out an altered copy for the unaltered copy that Zapruder kept in his possession??? Please answer these points in a reasonable a logically fashion - thanks!

Lot's of "if's"? Yes, that's what makes this so interesting, everything required for alteration was there to do the job, including the time to do it [/color]

Again .... the above statement is illogical given the order of events that it supposes for proof. The facts of the case is that the original Zfilm and a first generation print remained with Zapruder until Saturday, thus there could not have been a "if" when it comes to the original film being destroyed the first day. It may be interesting to imagine what hings would have been like had JFK of lived, but it is only a pleasant though and has nothing to do with reality as we know it IMO. If someone can offer a sensible explanation for even wasting time on such an impossibility, then I would enjoy hearing it.

Bill Miller

here's the reality champ -- JFK is dead, shot deader than a door nail in Dallas. By a group of cowards, I do not believe in Camelot, I've been around to long... I could careless about your so-called film evaluation experience (as if one could deem it as such), you've not changed my thoughts and ideas regarding the subject matter at hand.

Your dancing champ and we're playing the music... btw, you've wasted nearly 6 years of your life commenting on this issue, how sensible is THAT?

To conclude: It's quite simple really. There is no possible way that (2) can we answered YES, for (2) could equally well have been written ' How do you know that the film was not 'doctored' ? ... as you correctly observed when you referred to the impossibility of proving a negative proposition. In other words, those who proclaim that the film is 100% genuine, would be well advised to admit that logically they have no way of knowing one way or the other, and so, to mend their ways, all they have to do is respond to (1) with an obviously logical truthful NO. The question is... Is there one of them with sufficient intestinal fortitude to admit it ? Therein lies the challenge to preserving integrity.

Just wait and see !

Ed, I believe the film is authentic. But because I wasn't there, because people sometimes lie, because there are some questions that in my view remain unanswered, I acknowledge the possibility exists that someone might have tampered with it in some way. I would also add that, in my opinion, nobody has disovered any tampering to a degree that would be meaningful in a court of law.

dgh: oh, I don't know. if, IF the extent Z-film got to a court of law LOL, I suspect the hue and cry would be so loud, 'especially from the Dallas area', we'd need earmuffs all the way out here in the desert... That film is the crux of the case for the Lone Assassin in the TSBD... if the film was altered [for WHATEVER reason], the WCR is a falsehood...

Frankly, if the Z-film was altered, I suspect the original duble 8mm film that ran through Zapruder's camera Nov 22nd 1963 was destroyed within day's of the assassination, only a ego the size of Dallas would insist on keeping a print of the in-camera ORIGINAL.

Lot's of "if's"? Yes, that's what makes this so interesting, everything required for alteration was there to do the job, including the time to do it

'Robin Unger'

Today was the first time i had seen this image below.

Look in the backround of this image:

Mobile phone 1960's style.

The man with the PRESS ticket on his suit coat.

Is this what many people have reffered to as the Press Car Phone. ?

________________

Robin,

below link 3/4 of the way down the page... may be the unit, used primarily for Police and Fire, to the best of my knowledge there was no "mobile press telephone at the time"...

http://www.mbay.net/~wb6nvh/Motadata.htm

my question is who is this guy?

'Thomas H. Purvis' wrote:

Usage of the .22 rifle was common for a number of reasons.

1. It was by far less dangerous in the hands of some of those who had never held a rifle.

2. It taught the shooter the "basics" of how to crawl before he was required to walk and/or run with the larger caliber rifle.

3. It was highly "cost effective" for the USMC budget in regards to ammo costs.

4. "Non-shooters" were far less likely to become shell-shocked from the noise of the .22, as compared to the M1-Garand, on initial learning to shoot.

5. All of the "basics" could be taught utilizing a weapon which was far less likely to be "coveted" and stolen.

Weapons theft (M1-Garand) as well as all other actual issue weapons was a common problem. By utilizing the .22 for basic introduction training, the Marine learned the importance of hanging onto his weapon utilizing a weapon which was far less likely to be the target of theft.

6. Raw recruits were far less likely to come down with the "Garand Thumb" problem early in their rifle training, by utilization of the .22 to learn the basics of marksmanship.

Who remembers any other reasons???????????

Thanks for the USMC info, Tom -- Certainly didn't have .22's in ARMY basic trainning-1962. I got the thumb and that rifle beat the xxxx out of me. I'll never forget the range instructor running a full clip through the M1 while resting the butt plate aganist his chin.

'Michael Hogan' provided:

From Page 191 of The Warren Report:

Oswald's Marine Training

In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in the .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.

dgh: when did the Marine Corp. utilize .22 caliber rifles and pistols during bootcamp? I believe Oswald qualified with a M-1 Garand 7.62cal rifle (30-30)

The way I read that is that the .22 was used only to familiarize recruits with live ammunition.

'Michael Hogan' provided:

From Page 191 of The Warren Report:

(Emphases added)

More of Colonel Folsom's testimony:

dgh: by all means have the appropriate PhD. fill us in on mistaken facts [/color]

dgh: you never even heard of a optical film printer till HOAX made print, so please tell us his approach...[/color]

dgh: then by-all-means review my chapter or find the appropriate website where the entire presentation sits... just view the pictures I'm sure thats sufficent[/color]

dgh:still are a piece of cake to alter, now motion, that's a different story -- stay on point here [/color]

dgh:what we have here is more shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving and extreme difficulty dealing with other viewpoint. We do however understand the difficulty wrapping ones arms around revisionist history, just keep coming back -- it does get better![/color]

dgh:I go with the Z-film is altered, you in particular have shown (me) nothing to the contrary...

David, these are the same idiotic say-nothing responses you always give. This forum has an archived database where people can read the responses that have been given to you, thus repeating them will not benefit anyone. For instance, your 'nutty comment about cake and motion is just another example of you playing games rather than addressing the facts in an intelligent way. Jack White has said that to alter the Zfilm - "STILLS" would need to be made, thus 'stills' are exactly what we are talking about here. And do I have to remind you that it didn't take a Ph.D. to know that Moorman's photo was filmed for television not 30 minutes following the shooting and Jack and the Ph.D., because they obviously were not aware of this, screwed the pooch when they claimed Zapruder and Sitzman were added to the pedestal at a later time. For anyone to ignore this and pretend that one needs a Ph.D. to be capable of properly researching these matters is totally asinine and somewhat dishonest in light of the comment you make above which says, "I go with the Z-film is altered" ... because you have admitted more than once to these forum members that you have no proof of Zfilm alteration and/or you have not seen any proof of Zfilm alteration, thus to state the opposite now shows that you merely say whatever you need to say to get by for the moment.

btw, I can post another 60 or so commercial film release *special effects* examples - released right up to Nov 20th 1963 if you like, also... has the in-camera Z-film been laced up in a projector **and ran** since, say 1964? 65-66-67? [/color] [/b]

And I bet that in each case, just as with the Mary Poppin's movie mentioned in "Hoax" that anyone can find the signs of alteration that was done in each film. Examples of the Mary Poppins movie have already been displayed on this forum.

Bill Miller

If you continue to quote me, please do so correctly and in

context.

Years ago when I said the way I would alter the film is to

make prints, alter the prints, and rephotograph them...I was

not familiar with how "hollywood" special effects people had

far advanced techninques using optical printers, etc. Back then

I was saying HOW I WOULD DO THE ALTERATION, and it was

a very valid concept I presented which was sometimes used.

Quoting "old opinions" out of context is bad manners. Don't

use me to bolster your uninformed conclusions.

Jack

"old opinions" eh? ROFLOMAO!! How old? LOL!

May 6 2006, 04:03 PM Post #3

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 2344

Joined: 26-April 04

Member No.: 667

Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made!

It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!

Nobody but a dunce would think that!

There are numerous ways of doing film alteration, but none involves making altertions

directly on film. Kodachrome is no different than other films in this respect.

Most processes involve COPYING, MATTING, GLASS PAINTING, SOFT MATTES, TRAVELING

MATTES, LOW CONTRAST FILMS, OPTICAL PRINTERS, RECOPYING...and a host of other

techniques of which Miller has no understanding.

But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,

would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS

DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA,

USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about

500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist.

Any amateur could have done this. It is basic copystand work. Check anyone who

knows anything about movies, and they will verify the above.

Complicating it somewhat were the intrasprocket images...but Costella explains that

nicely.

Jack

WANNA TRY AGAIN? LOL!

Months ago a forum naysayer or two (regarding possible alteration of the Zapruder film) questioned adequate expertise available to perform film special effects [pre-1963]. A few samples were requested, a list of 80+ films where significant special effects were performed within said film is below:

This page contains a list of the winners and nominees for the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences award (Oscar TM) in the Visual Effects category. Covering the period between 1939-1959 (only)

1939

The Rains Came (w). E.H. Hansen and Fred Sersen, 20th Century-Fox.

Gone With the Wind. John R. Cosgrove, Fred Albin and Arthur Johns. MGM.

Only Angeles Have Wings. Roy Advidson and Edwin C. Hahn, Columbia.

The Private Lives of Elisabeth and Essex. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Topper Takes a Trip. Roy Seawright, UA.

Union Pacific. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Loren Ryder, Paramount.

The Wizard of Oz. A.Arnold Gillespie and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

1940

The Thief of Bagdad (w). Lawrence Butler and Jack Whitney, UA.

The Blue Bird. Fred Sersen and E. H. Hansen, 20th Century-Fox

Boom Town. A. Arnold Gillespie, and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Boys From Syracuse. John P. Fulton, Bernard B. Brown and Joeseph Lapis, Universal.

Dr. Cyclops. Farciot Edouart and Gordon Jennings, Paramount.

Foreign Correspondent. Paul Eagler and Thomas T. Moulton, UA.

The Invisible Man Returns. John P. Fulton, Bernard B. Brown and William Hedgecock, Universal.

The Long Voyage Home. R.T. Layton, R.O. Binger and Thomas T. Moulton, UA.

One Million B.C. Roy Seawright and Elmer Raguse, UA.

Rebecca. Jack Cosgrove and Arthur Johns, UA.

The Sea Hawk. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Swiss Family Robinson. Vernon L. Walker and John O. Aalberg.

Typhoon. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Loren Ryder, Paramount.

Women in War. Howard J. Lydecker, William Bradford, Ellis J. Thackery and Herbert Norsch, Republic.

1941

I Wanted Wings (w). Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Louis Mesenkop. Paramount.

Aloma of The South Seas. Faciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Louis Mesenkop, Paramount.

Flight Command. A.Arnold Gillespie and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Invisible Woman. John Fulton, and John Hall, Universal.

The Sea Wolf. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

That Hamilton Woman. Lawrence Butler and William H. Wilmarth, UA.

Topper Returns. Roy Seawright and Elmer Raguse, UA.

A Yank in the R.A.F. Fred Sersen and E.H. Hansen, 20th Century Fox.

1942

Reap the Wild Wind (w). Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings, William L. Pereira and Louis Mesenkop, Paramount.

The Black Swan. Fred Sersen, Roger Herman, and George Leverett, 20th Century Fox.

Desperate Journey. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Flying Tigers. Howard Lydecker and Daniel J. Bloomberg, Republic.

Invisible Agent. John Fulton and Bernard B Brown, Universal.

Jungle Book. Lawrence Butler and William H. Wilmarth, UA.

Mrs. Miniver. A. Arnold Gillespie, Warrn Newcombe and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Navy Comes Through. Vernon L. Walker and James G. Stewart, RKO Radio.

One of Our Aircraft is Missing. Ronald Neame and C.C. Steven, UA.

The Pride of The Yankees. Jack Cosgrove, Ray Binger and Thomas T. Moulton, RKO Radio.

1943

Crash Dive (w). Fred Sersen and Roger Herman, 20th Century Fox.

Air Force. Hans Koenekamp, Rex Wimpy and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Bombardier. Vernon L. Walker, James G. Stewart and Roy Granville, RKO Radio.

The North Star. Clarence Slifer, R.O. Binger and Thomas T. Moulton, RKO Radio.

So Proudly We Hail. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings, and George Dutton, Paramount.

Stand By for Action. A. Arnold Gillespie, Donald Jahraus and Michael Steinore, MBM.

1944

Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (w). A. Arnold Gillespie, Donald Jahraus, Warren Newcombe and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Adventures of Mark Twain. Paul Detlefsen, John Crouse and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Days of Glory. Vernon L. Walker, James G. Stewart and Roy Granville, RKO Radio.

Secret Command. David Allen, Ray Cory, Robert Wright, Russell Malmgren and Harry Kusnick, Columbia.

Since You Went Away. John R. Cosgrove and Arthur Johns, UA.

The Story of Dr. Wassell. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings, and George Dutton, Paramount.

Wilson. Fred Sersen and Roger Heman, 20th Century Fox.

1945

Wonder Man (w). John Fulton and A.W. Johns, RKO Radio.

Captain Eddie. Fred Sersen, Sol Halprin, Roger Heman and Harry Leonard, 20th Century Fox.

Spellbound. Jack Cosgrove, UA.

They Were Expendable. A. Arnold Gillespie, Donald Jahraus, R.A. MacDonald and Michael Steinore, MGM.

A Thousand and One Nights. L.W. Butler and Ray Bomba, Columbia.

1946

Blithe Spirit (w). Thomas Howard, UA.

A Stolen Life. William McGann and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

1947

Green Dolphin Street (w). A. Arnold Gillespie, Warren Newcombe, Douglas Shearer and Michael Steinore, MGM.

Unconquered. Farciot Edouart, Devereux Jennings, Gordon Jennings, Wallace Kelly, Paul Lerpae and George Dutton, Paramount.

1948

Portrait of Jennie (w). Paul Eagler, J. McMillan Johnson, Russell Shearman, Clarence Slifer, Charles Freeman and James G. Stewart, Selznick Releasing Organization.

Deep Waters, Ralph Hammeras, Fred Sersen, Edward Snyder and Roger Heman, 20th Century Fox.

1949

Mighty Joe Young (w). RKO Radio.

Tulsa. Eagle-Lion.

1950

Destination Moon (w). Eagle-Lion.

Samson and Delilah. Paramount.

1951

When Worlds Collide (w). Paramount.

1952

Plymouth Adventure (w). MGM.

1953

The War of the Worlds (w). Paramount.

1954

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (w). Walt Disney Studios.

Hell and High Water. 20th Century Fox.

Them! Warner Bros.

1955

The Bridges At Toko-Ri (w). Paramount.

The Dam Busters. Warner Bros.

The Rains of Ranchipur. 20th Century Fox.

1956

The Ten Commandments (w). John Fulton, Paramount.

Forbidden Planet. A. Arnold Gillespie, Irving Ries and Wesley C. Miller, MGM.

1957

The Enemy Below (w). Walter Rossi, 20th Century Fox.

The Spirit of St.Louis. Louis Lichtenfield, Warner Bros.

1958

Tom Thumb (w). Tom Howard, MGM.

Torpedo Run. A. Arnold Gillespie and Harold Humbrock, MGM.

What a major strawman David! The question is not IF it was possible to create special effects on film, but RATHER could those special effects hold up to the level of detailed study applied to the Zapruder film.

When you can deal with that question get back to us.

rotflmfao! the *strawmen* around here are weak kneed sisters posing as researchers... deliver me access to the extent Zapruder in-camera original, we'll have a discussion, till then sitdown you haven't a clue.

dgh: by all means have the appropriate PhD. fill us in on mistaken facts [/color]

dgh: you never even heard of a optical film printer till HOAX made print, so please tell us his approach...[/color]

dgh: then by-all-means review my chapter or find the appropriate website where the entire presentation sits... just view the pictures I'm sure thats sufficent[/color]

dgh:still are a piece of cake to alter, now motion, that's a different story -- stay on point here [/color]

dgh:what we have here is more shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving and extreme difficulty dealing with other viewpoint. We do however understand the difficulty wrapping ones arms around revisionist history, just keep coming back -- it does get better![/color]

dgh:I go with the Z-film is altered, you in particular have shown (me) nothing to the contrary...

David, these are the same idiotic say-nothing responses you always give. This forum has an archived database where people can read the responses that have been given to you, thus repeating them will not benefit anyone. For instance, your 'nutty comment about cake and motion is just another example of you playing games rather than addressing the facts in an intelligent way. Jack White has said that to alter the Zfilm - "STILLS" would need to be made, thus 'stills' are exactly what we are talking about here. And do I have to remind you that it didn't take a Ph.D. to know that Moorman's photo was filmed for television not 30 minutes following the shooting and Jack and the Ph.D., because they obviously were not aware of this, screwed the pooch when they claimed Zapruder and Sitzman were added to the pedestal at a later time. For anyone to ignore this and pretend that one needs a Ph.D. to be capable of properly researching these matters is totally asinine and somewhat dishonest in light of the comment you make above which says, "I go with the Z-film is altered" ... because you have admitted more than once to these forum members that you have no proof of Zfilm alteration and/or you have not seen any proof of Zfilm alteration, thus to state the opposite now shows that you merely say whatever you need to say to get by for the moment.

btw, I can post another 60 or so commercial film release *special effects* examples - released right up to Nov 20th 1963 if you like, also... has the in-camera Z-film been laced up in a projector **and ran** since, say 1964? 65-66-67? [/color] [/b]

And I bet that in each case, just as with the Mary Poppin's movie mentioned in "Hoax" that anyone can find the signs of alteration that was done in each film. Examples of the Mary Poppins movie have already been displayed on this forum.

Bill Miller

it's ALWAYS idiotic and assinine when you aren't familiar with the material, techniques, technology and/or circa. expertise... you need another line, Willie. Again, I realize this is difficult stuff for you and the gang, keep plugging away, you'll get there....

'Bill Miller' wrote:

I'll start with the latter comment first .... I have read the book, as well as other historians and researchers who actually knew the history of the Zfilm and Life Magazine's involvement in the matter and it was apparent that Costella didn't have his facts right at times.

dgh: by all means have the appropriate PhD. fill us in on mistaken facts

Costella was so far off in his approach that he didn't even understand why Life's prints were clearer than the work MPI created and yet he manages to always reach the same conclusion - now that is a mystery in itself.

dgh: you never even heard of a optical film printer till HOAX made print, so please tell us his approach...

The "if" side of the equation I give for arguments sake was presented to show that even if it was possible to alter any of the film copies and somehow magically make Zapruder's copy print take on whatever alterations needed (presumably while Z's copy was in his possession), then one has to go to the next phase and say what exactly was altered in the Zapruder film that is different than what is seen on the other assassination films and photographs ... I look for forward to hearing this explaination, which one will not find in the "HOAX" book.

dgh: then by-all-means review my chapter or find the appropriate website where the entire presentation sits... just view the pictures I'm sure thats sufficent

Something to think about: I keep hearing it said that the technology was so advanced as to accomplish such an alteration feat in 1963/64, yet it is those same alleged masters of manipulation that merely punched a hole in the license plate of the car seen in the photograph taken at General Walker's house and who allegedly failed so miserably at manipulating the infamous Back Yard Photographs.

dgh: stills are a piece of cake to alter, now motion, that's a different story -- stay on point here. Your not NOW doubting the technology was available are you?

So what we have is alterationist claiming these people could alter images so well as to fool even todays investigators in one instant and in the next breath they claim the alterations were so bad that their dirty work can be easily spotted.

dgh:what we have here is more shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving and extreme difficulty dealing with other viewpoint. We do however understand the difficulty wrapping ones arms around revisionist history, just keep coming back -- it does get better!

So which is it ????

dgh:I go with the Z-film is altered, you in particular have shown (me) nothing to the contrary...

btw, I can post another 60 or so commercial film release *special effects* examples - released right up to Nov 20th 1963 if you like, also... has the in-camera Z-film been laced up in a projector **and ran** since, say 1964? 65-66-67?

Bill Miller

When considering the mechanical inventions and accomplishments which occurred during the 20th century alone, I do not understand how "anyone" could state that there are mechanical functions, which are not contrary to the basic laws of physics, that could not be carried out when confronted by the best brains in the world !

...

Charlie Black

I don't think the real issue here is the capability to alter the film, per se. We've been doctoring photographs (and film) since the early days of the science/art.

It is a certainty that films, in 1963, could be altered.

The REAL questions, IMO, are:

1) Did ample opportunity exist to alter not only the Z-film, but all the other films and stills?

2) Did the capability exist in 1963 to make alterations that remain undetectable in 2006?

great questions, Frank!

1.) one can begin by; *ANY* source providing the original (with affidavits stating same) of all assassination related films/photos for review, and who had posesson of same up to 60 days after the assassination (with chain of posession) - then one can begin "opportunity"...

2.) best the Lone Nutters could do to date is/was dust of Roland Zavada, enlist Ray Fielding for a re-do of the original Zavada report, that effort has failed miserably (for whatever reason). What we're left with is a few feeble attempts by non-qualified preservers of Dealey Plaza historical photo/film record... Direct response to your 2nd question: No one will know for sure till the "original" in-camera films are scrutinized and forensic testing performed on same.... the question has been asked...

****************

'Robin Unger' wrote:

David.

I don't subscribe to the Zapruder film alteration theory.

I do however, beleive the technology was around in the 50's to alter any film SHOULD the government have wanted too.

Hollywood California.

Look Out Mountain.

TOP SECRET FILM LAB AND FILM STUDIO'S

_______________

Thanks for the images, Robin.... the source please?

David

*************

'Bill Miller' wrote

Jack

Jack, just answer the big question and stop trying to sell another copy of a book that has been a laughing stock around the JFK assassination community in recent years.

Bill Miller

___________________

open the book and read it, bill -- you've already got a copy, if nothing else I'm sure Josiah or Gary can help you out

I don't subscribe to the Zapruder film alteration theory.

I do however, beleive the technology was around in the 50's to alter any film SHOULD the government have wanted too.

Hollywood California.

Look Out Mountain.

TOP SECRET FILM LAB AND FILM STUDIO'S

My investigation has shown to my satisfaction that in 1963, the Zapruder film could not have been altered so to be undetectable by todays standards of investigation. But regardless, if possible, then there has to be opportunity. I would like someone to tell me how the Government was able to alter film copies that they did not have in their possession? Zapruder kept Two films with him through Saturday where Life then gets possession of the original film so to make slides. By late Satuday night or early Sunday - Life Magazine is putting key frames into print and yet Zapruder still has a first generation copy in his possesion. If any of the other film copies were altered, then they sure didn't have ALL the copies, so tell me how it is that Zapruder's print still shows the EXACT same things as the other prints that some alleged could have been altered?? By Sundsy, if any Zfilm copies had been altered, then how could they know that other assassination films would not show up afterwards and expose the dirty deed??? Marie Muchmore's film for example was not known to exist until after 1PM Monday ... AFTER Life had put key frames into print, so how can an alteration supporter explain this all away and do it rationally and logically????

Bill Miller

looks like your wandering over to my side of the 'IF' fence -- "...but regardless, if possible...", eh?

John Costella dealt with the LIFE "key frames" into print issue, might try reading the book...

About time to destroy the myth that LHO was a poor marksman.

First off, he was raised hunting rabbits with a .22 rifle.

Poor shots use shotguns, not .22 caliber rifles.

Secondly, his USMC rating leaves much to be explained, and if one digs deep enough, they just may find that LHO was, in many ways, an exceptional shot.

Mr. Hemming, you and/or any other USMC personnel, please feel free to step in and help clarify a few items about the rifle markmanship training of the USMC and exactly what it may, and may not mean.

Any USMC type's out there who would like to explain how one gets their rifle markmanship rating?

I don't know, Tom -- I was privy to this exchange (and many more of the same) concerning Oswalds shooting prowess, I X'd out references to thread names, this ought to shed a little light on a differing opinion. I might add two of the three [of the threads] participants where active military during the Vietnam era, one USA-armor [Maj. ret.], another USA-artillery [Maj. ret.] and the another USMC-infantry [10 yrs. active duty]

David

From: XXXXXXX -

Date: Sat, Nov XX XXXX 10:51 pm

Email: XXXXXXX

Groups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Not yet rated

Rating:

show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

On XX Nov 20XX GMT, XXXXXXXXXX wrote:

>>Subject: the USMC knows who shot JFK

>>From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

>>Date: 11/14/01 4:24 PM Pacific Standard Time

>>Message-id: <XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX...@posting.google.com>

>>I have always marveled at the skill of Lee Harvey Oswald in shooting a

>>moving target from a long distance at an intractable angle. That's

>>Olympic calibre skill, at the very least.

>***What is olympic about shooting at a slowly moving vehicle at Z224 onward,

>when the vehicle was in the near middle of an S curve, such that the lateral

>angle was

>decreased?

>***

Perhaps the disturbing fact that no shooters have come close to

duplicating it? Including the rather highly qualified ones that the

WC had trying it?

Most non-shooters have no concept of the difference in skill between

Oswald, (as demonstrated by his qualification scores in the Marine

Corps), and the men the WC used to try to duplicate the event.

It would not be overexaggerating to compare Oswald to 14 year old in

the boxing ring at the local Boys & Girls Club, compared to a seasoned

professional boxer. And yet, "It was an easy knockout...."

I suspect that someone clued in the WC, since they never insisted on

an elevation difference and a moving target.

>>I don't know much about Oswald's military record, but it should be

>>available via the Open Records Act. If he was that good a marksman

>>the Marine Corps would have at a minimum given him a marksmanship

>>medal (they give those out in Basic Training; so no matter what his

>>speciality, he would have been so recognized had he the talent). A

>>man that skilled would have immediately been promoted into a

>>sharpshooters unit too. Even then 99.5% of the people in special

>>units like that won't have the skill to make those shots on JFK. One

>>thing is for sure, though - if the USMC didn't give him any

>>marksmanship medals it's impossible he could have shot JFK.

I fired on the USMC's West Coast rifle team for a few months, and

those shooters the WC chose to 'test' their theories are as far above

my shooting abilities, as I was above Oswald's. For any Marines out

there, I routinely qualified between a 238 and a 242.

A "Sharpshooter", which is what Oswald qualified for in Boot camp, is

not what it sounds like to a civilian. Really good shooting skills

*begin* at the Expert badge... You can have 50% or more of just

everyday average people qualify for a sharpshooters badge in just two

weeks of training. It's what the Marine Corps does!!

>*** It is common record that Oswald qualified for the mid level medal by two

>shots during basic. It is also common knowledge that closer shots are easier

>than far shots. Kennedy was relatively close by military standards.

>***

Deceptive... He fired Sharpshooter in Basic, but never again fired

above Marksman... and had *trouble* just qualifying as marksman.

There's witness testimony to his 'Maggies Drawer's'. (Missing the

target entirely) And if you don't know how big the standard Marine

Corps target is, you should find out.

Close shots *are* easier than far shots. But moving targets are more

difficult than non-moving, and level shots are far easier than shots

over a vertical difference. Something, I might point out, the Marine

Corps does *not* train in.

>>I remember a scene in "Full Medal Jacket" when the Drill Sergeant

>>bragged that a marine shot JFK and also a marine did the rampage here

>>at the Univ. of Texas at Austin from the Tower, in which a couple

>>dozen people were shot all over the campus.

>***best you pay atttention to that.

Marines are justly famous for their marksman skills. It's emphasized

quite a bit in the Corps. And although there's almost certainly just

as many former Army personal involved in shooting incidents as former

Marines... it's always noted and remarked on when it's a former

Marine. We *do* have that reputation, and it becomes self-sustaining.

I enjoyed a decade of firing Expert in the Corps, shooting with the

rifle team, and meeting some *real* rifle experts... I learned just

how large the span is between people like Oswald and myself... and

between my modest shooting ability and someone who is *REALLY* good.

And my experience in the Corps has given me enough knowledge to be

able to enjoy a good laugh at the ease with which people will

charactorize the shots as easy.

>>I suspect the second shooter at UT is the key to who shot JFK. An

>>investigation of his military record should show marksmanship medals

>>too. If they don't then - since it's 100% proven that he really did

>>do the shootings at UT - it means that the USMC is covering up the

>>event; and it also implies the marines are covering up Oswald's

>>record.

>***The USMC has no reason to cover up Oswald's record. He shot at relatively

>close range- under 100 yards.

>***

Why is it that experienced shooters invariably point out how difficult

the shots were, while non-shooters attempt to claim how 'easy' the

shots were?

>>Either way, somebody ought to be looking into how the USMC and the

>>other military branches train people to shoot like that. Here in

>>Central Texas they are training lots of military personnel for the

>>campaign in Central Asia. I sure hope they screen those people before

>>they train them.

Give me two weeks of your time, and I can get you to the same level

Oswald was at. Just don't expect that it will mean as much as many

people think. The evidence shows that Oswald was *not* a 'natural'

shot, and never improved over his bootcamp scores... in fact, he got

worse.

Months ago a forum naysayer or two (regarding possible alteration of the Zapruder film) questioned adequate expertise available to perform film special effects [pre-1963]. A few samples were requested, a list of 80+ films where significant special effects were performed within said film is below:

This page contains a list of the winners and nominees for the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences award (Oscar TM) in the Visual Effects category. Covering the period between 1939-1959 (only)

1939

The Rains Came (w). E.H. Hansen and Fred Sersen, 20th Century-Fox.

Gone With the Wind. John R. Cosgrove, Fred Albin and Arthur Johns. MGM.

Only Angeles Have Wings. Roy Advidson and Edwin C. Hahn, Columbia.

The Private Lives of Elisabeth and Essex. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Topper Takes a Trip. Roy Seawright, UA.

Union Pacific. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Loren Ryder, Paramount.

The Wizard of Oz. A.Arnold Gillespie and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

1940

The Thief of Bagdad (w). Lawrence Butler and Jack Whitney, UA.

The Blue Bird. Fred Sersen and E. H. Hansen, 20th Century-Fox

Boom Town. A. Arnold Gillespie, and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Boys From Syracuse. John P. Fulton, Bernard B. Brown and Joeseph Lapis, Universal.

Dr. Cyclops. Farciot Edouart and Gordon Jennings, Paramount.

Foreign Correspondent. Paul Eagler and Thomas T. Moulton, UA.

The Invisible Man Returns. John P. Fulton, Bernard B. Brown and William Hedgecock, Universal.

The Long Voyage Home. R.T. Layton, R.O. Binger and Thomas T. Moulton, UA.

One Million B.C. Roy Seawright and Elmer Raguse, UA.

Rebecca. Jack Cosgrove and Arthur Johns, UA.

The Sea Hawk. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Swiss Family Robinson. Vernon L. Walker and John O. Aalberg.

Typhoon. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Loren Ryder, Paramount.

Women in War. Howard J. Lydecker, William Bradford, Ellis J. Thackery and Herbert Norsch, Republic.

1941

I Wanted Wings (w). Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Louis Mesenkop. Paramount.

Aloma of The South Seas. Faciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Louis Mesenkop, Paramount.

Flight Command. A.Arnold Gillespie and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Invisible Woman. John Fulton, and John Hall, Universal.

The Sea Wolf. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

That Hamilton Woman. Lawrence Butler and William H. Wilmarth, UA.

Topper Returns. Roy Seawright and Elmer Raguse, UA.

A Yank in the R.A.F. Fred Sersen and E.H. Hansen, 20th Century Fox.

1942

Reap the Wild Wind (w). Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings, William L. Pereira and Louis Mesenkop, Paramount.

The Black Swan. Fred Sersen, Roger Herman, and George Leverett, 20th Century Fox.

Desperate Journey. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Flying Tigers. Howard Lydecker and Daniel J. Bloomberg, Republic.

Invisible Agent. John Fulton and Bernard B Brown, Universal.

Jungle Book. Lawrence Butler and William H. Wilmarth, UA.

Mrs. Miniver. A. Arnold Gillespie, Warrn Newcombe and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Navy Comes Through. Vernon L. Walker and James G. Stewart, RKO Radio.

One of Our Aircraft is Missing. Ronald Neame and C.C. Steven, UA.

The Pride of The Yankees. Jack Cosgrove, Ray Binger and Thomas T. Moulton, RKO Radio.

1943

Crash Dive (w). Fred Sersen and Roger Herman, 20th Century Fox.

Air Force. Hans Koenekamp, Rex Wimpy and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Bombardier. Vernon L. Walker, James G. Stewart and Roy Granville, RKO Radio.

The North Star. Clarence Slifer, R.O. Binger and Thomas T. Moulton, RKO Radio.

So Proudly We Hail. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings, and George Dutton, Paramount.

Stand By for Action. A. Arnold Gillespie, Donald Jahraus and Michael Steinore, MBM.

1944

Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (w). A. Arnold Gillespie, Donald Jahraus, Warren Newcombe and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Adventures of Mark Twain. Paul Detlefsen, John Crouse and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Days of Glory. Vernon L. Walker, James G. Stewart and Roy Granville, RKO Radio.

Secret Command. David Allen, Ray Cory, Robert Wright, Russell Malmgren and Harry Kusnick, Columbia.

Since You Went Away. John R. Cosgrove and Arthur Johns, UA.

The Story of Dr. Wassell. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings, and George Dutton, Paramount.

Wilson. Fred Sersen and Roger Heman, 20th Century Fox.

1945

Wonder Man (w). John Fulton and A.W. Johns, RKO Radio.

Captain Eddie. Fred Sersen, Sol Halprin, Roger Heman and Harry Leonard, 20th Century Fox.

Spellbound. Jack Cosgrove, UA.

They Were Expendable. A. Arnold Gillespie, Donald Jahraus, R.A. MacDonald and Michael Steinore, MGM.

A Thousand and One Nights. L.W. Butler and Ray Bomba, Columbia.

1946

Blithe Spirit (w). Thomas Howard, UA.

A Stolen Life. William McGann and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

1947

Green Dolphin Street (w). A. Arnold Gillespie, Warren Newcombe, Douglas Shearer and Michael Steinore, MGM.

Unconquered. Farciot Edouart, Devereux Jennings, Gordon Jennings, Wallace Kelly, Paul Lerpae and George Dutton, Paramount.

1948

Portrait of Jennie (w). Paul Eagler, J. McMillan Johnson, Russell Shearman, Clarence Slifer, Charles Freeman and James G. Stewart, Selznick Releasing Organization.

Deep Waters, Ralph Hammeras, Fred Sersen, Edward Snyder and Roger Heman, 20th Century Fox.

1949

Mighty Joe Young (w). RKO Radio.

Tulsa. Eagle-Lion.

1950

Destination Moon (w). Eagle-Lion.

Samson and Delilah. Paramount.

1951

When Worlds Collide (w). Paramount.

1952

Plymouth Adventure (w). MGM.

1953

The War of the Worlds (w). Paramount.

1954

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (w). Walt Disney Studios.

Hell and High Water. 20th Century Fox.

Them! Warner Bros.

1955

The Bridges At Toko-Ri (w). Paramount.

The Dam Busters. Warner Bros.

The Rains of Ranchipur. 20th Century Fox.

1956

The Ten Commandments (w). John Fulton, Paramount.

Forbidden Planet. A. Arnold Gillespie, Irving Ries and Wesley C. Miller, MGM.

1957

The Enemy Below (w). Walter Rossi, 20th Century Fox.

The Spirit of St.Louis. Louis Lichtenfield, Warner Bros.

1958

Tom Thumb (w). Tom Howard, MGM.

Torpedo Run. A. Arnold Gillespie and Harold Humbrock, MGM.

'Evan Burton' wrote:

Dave - I agree.

I tend to get testy when people say I "blindly accept" what is told to me. The truth is far different; I question things, and make up my own mind.

I've spoken to aeronautical and aerospace engineers about Apollo. I've seen the developments from the technology. I've seen experts examine it in detail. I've looked up the facts and figures, looked up the formula to calculate various aspects (thrust, speed, fuel usage, etc), and calculated the figures myself. I've read technical reports. I've asked medical people about biomedical reports. I've investigated numerous aspects about it, and it always points to one conclusion - the landings were as recorded.

dgh: by the looks of it, you've had a few questions about the Apollo project? Comfort zones are just that, COMFORT ZONES, eh

As you are aware, I've examined the photographic claims of fakery and always found them wanting. I've contacted photographic experts about the claims. I've conducted experiments to verify photographic claims. I'm even shortly going to do an imagery analysis course (military).

And yet people claim an open mind when they say they won't be taught anything, refuse to examine material, dismiss anyone who disagrees with them.... I can only hope such people don't vote and don't breed.

'Bill Miller' wrote:

Ed, you have just identified a sunspot on Kellerman's left shoulder as a thrmos.

Bill Miller

___________

I do believe your looking at the wrong 'green' thing.... unless of course Kellerman's left shoulder extends out 3+ feet from his neck... interrupting these photos can be challenging at times, dontcha' know...

Dave Greer' wrote:

Duane...here is one you and Mr. Greer can discuss. I started it

several years ago and never completed it. Maybe Mr. Greer

can describe how the rover tracks got in the b/w photo, but not

in the color photo. There must be an explanation, don't you think?

Jack

OK, I'll bite.

There is indeed an explanation - and a very simple one that took me 20 minutes to get to the bottom of - why it took you years I find somewhat curious.

As I stated, they are from Apollo 15, not Apollo 16. They can both be found in www.apolloarchive.com

The B&W image is this one AS15-92-12447HR.jpg

The colour image is this one as15-88-11866HR.jpg

Jack, the B&W picture was during EVA 2. The colour picture was taken during EVA 3. The tyre marks from EVA 2 have been obscured by footprints and dust kicked up by the astronauts.

I think it only fair that you properly answer some rebuttals before expecting any further answers.

dgh: perhaps, some think the astronauts simply raked the area?

It's Apollo 15, not Apollo 16.

Dave-

I wish you would have posted this before I reviewed all 2800 Apollo 16 thumbnails at the Apollo Image Atlas!

I think you should be calling Jack, not me!

'Bill Miller' wrote:

(1) Does this mean that books by people who agree with you are historians but those who disagree with you are charlatans?

The above question shoud be addressed for as most anyone should know by now,

dgh: why Thank You for telling me what I "know" and think, quite generous, bit presumptive, but generous none-the-less

Gary believes there WAS a conspiracy in the murder of America's 35th President, thus the Musuem DOES NOT carry books that they only agree with. If this were the case, then that would mean that only books claiming a conspiracy in JFK's asassination would be sold there and this simply is not the case.

dgh: english please....

Bill Miller

One also wonders why if Jack has so much confidence in his research why he doesn't post on Apollo Hoax or BAUT. My guess it’s because he doesn't have the courage to debate on forums where there are numerous people quite knowledgeable about the space program in general and Apollo in particular. Jack seems more interested in pontificating that debating people knowledgeable on the subject or learning. You might want to try posting there too, you are more likely to have your questions answered there than here. Steve (Ulman), Craig and Evan are well informed about those subjects but I doubt they would take offence in my saying what they know (and the time they have to reply) pails in comparison to the collective knowledge of the members of those forums.

Len

there seems to be a serious character defect in Lone Nutter's: they (the nutters) evidently feel if one posts to any USNET/forum board, the poster should be open for debate... which of course is nonesense...

dgh: yep, Lance Burton would have a tough time duplicating that one, Penn and Teller (a staple in these parts) are of course on-the-record stating that all JFK Conspiracy theory is bullxxxx.... why the hell those idiots were consulted is beyond me...

The primary reasons I follow your posts regarding Mr. West's documents is; a. the Z-film appears doctored in places, b. the FBI/SS immediate surveys of DP put the "final shot" shot further down Elm St. (a huge conflict with what we see in the *current* extent film) much closer to where Altgens position on the infield is/was and c. I have no particular bias regarding LHO's involvement in the assassination. I do however (based on my experience), have a problem with his qualifications regarding "pulling" off shots of this magnitude, and I don't care if he had 15 seconds to accomplish same. Thus my long held position that a additional shooter was located to the rear of the Limo, probably in the DAL-TEX building.

IF, based on Mr. West's plat documents and Tom's excellent summary that the final shot came closer to Altgens camera position (further down Elm St. [on the infield] across from the stairs ascending the knoll, the Zapruder Film as we know it today is a fabrication, simple as that. In my estimation a FINAL shot (closer to Altgens camera position) has been removed [excised] from the original Zapruder-in-camera film, the SECOND shot (currently, we know it as Z-313, the WCR third and final shot) occured directly in front of/across from Zapruder camera position.

The degree of difficulty removing the kill shot, reletively easy -- re-establishing believable film continuity and effective matte painting (as we see today in Z-313 and the headsnap) difficult but professionally possible with 1963/64 film compositing and matte painting technology...

Perhaps before anyone becomes entirely lost, one should get back to the "slight" sleight-of-hand episode of how shot# 3 disappeared.

1. As referenced earlier, the US Secret Service, during the period of December 2, 3, & 4, completed a survey (utilizing Mr. West) and re-enactment of the assassination of JFK.

In completion of this work, the SS had available to them a first generation copy of the Zapruder film, and Mr. West completed his Survey Plat on December 5, 1963.

This survey plat did not utilize or reference frame#'s of the Z-film, and the impact point of the three shots fired was referenced by the Stationing# (footage measurement from a control point) as surveyed in on Elm St.

The result of this survey being:

A. That JFK was struck by the first bullet at a point which can now be clearly defined as Z210 or just prior.*

B. That JFK was struck by the second bullet at a point which can now be clearly defined as Z313.

C. That JFK was struck by the third bullet at a point which can now only be firmly defined as Station# 4+96

(surveyed in as 4+95) which is approximately 30 feet farther down Elm St. than the impact of the Z313 shot to the President's head and is located directly to the front of Mr. James Altgens.

*Since the SS utilized the obvious impact damage of Z313 as their reference, one must assume that they also observed some actions by JFK at the earlier/first shot impact as their reference for this shot.

Time/Life had utilized what can be ascertained as approximately Z204 to Z206 as their point at which the first shot was fired, and although this agrees exactly with the "jiggle analysis"/blurring of the Z-film, the discrepancy between the Time/Life placement and the SS placement is quite obvious.

This is also obvious in the Time/Life placement of the shot to the head of JFK at Z313 as the Time/Life survey has this point placed a few feet prior to the later accurately determined Z313 explosion of the President's head.

The correlation being that it appears that Time/Life was dealing with the exact point at which the shots were fired, and the US Secret Service was dealing with the observable reaction by JFK to impact of the shot.

2. Next, we have the FBI assuming responsibility for the investigation of the assassination, and thereafter the beginning of the misrepresentations.

On February 7, 1964, the FBI conducted their own survey and re-enactment of the assassination, with the results being:

A. The impact point of the third/last/final shot which impacted at 4+96/4+95, down in front of James Altgens, was left exactly as identified and surveyed in by the US Secret Service during their prior work.

B. The impact point of the second shot at Z313 stationing, was moved backwards up Elm St. a distance of 24.5 feet, which although making it appear on the Z-film that JBC was now turned in a position at which a bullet could have penetrated through his right shoulder, missing the scapula, and thereafter traversing down through his chest to his leg, nevertheless ignored/overlooked the fact that this shot impact location had now been "moved" on paperwork to an impact position which was clearly before JFK had passed the first yellow stripe on Elm St.

And, the yellow stripe was an absolutely dead give-away as to where JFK was at the impact of the Z313 shot.

C. The FBI left the first shot impact point, as determined by the US Secret Service, in it's approximate Z210/exact same position.

*It must be assumed that the FBI was fully cognizant of the fact that the only way that a bullet could strike in the edge of the hairline of JFK and thereafter "tunnel" up through the soft flesh of the neck to strike in the EOP region, when fired on a downward angle, was for the President to be leaning well forward with the back of his head in an almost horizontal position.

This, coupled with the fact that the FBI had in their possession the President's coat, which had the small (second) bullet hole located at the edge of the collar, located just to the right of the midline, directly in alignment with the bullet entrance hole at the edge of the hairline on the neck of JFK, fully established a bullet trajectory that absolutely could not be made to match with the Z313 position of JFK's head at Z313.

therefore, it appears that the FBI/JEH took the prudent approach with the intent to make the Z313 shot disappear and utilize the 4+96/altgens location as it absolutely could be made to match forensically; ballistically; and pathologically, with the known evidence.

Therefore, we almost had Z313 disappear!

But, it could not, as there were too many who had seen the evidence (film) as well as too many witnesses on Elm St. that had observed this impact to the head of JFK.

Now, we can move on to the "Eisenberg" slight/sleight-of-hand trick and the disappearing act of the true shot#3.

Hopefully, the dopplegangers will leave things alone long enough to get through this!

3. Next, we have the Eisenberg distances as given to Ronald Simmons of Edgewood Arsenal, which were:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances?

Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself?

Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of what those distances are.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First off, one truly should question exactly how it is/was that anyone could come up with the distance for the first shot, when the WC informed us that they could not even determine if the first shot missed, etc; etc; etc;.

Of course, we already know the answer, being that the US Secret Service & FBI both had this distance on their survey plats.

Secondly, the distance of 240 feet which was given by Eisenberg to Ronald Simmons, is the "Make Believe" impact location on Elm St. at which the FBI had made Z313 disappear from it's impact point, and magically move back up the street 24.5 feet prior to the Z313 position.

Lastly, and this is where the lies truly created the confusion, the third/last/final shot down at Altgens position on Elm St was, in these measurements, made to completely disappear, or if one will, moved back up the street to the Z313 position which was the 265-feet slant distance.

So now, Ronald Simmons shooters had the following distances to shoot at:

Shot#1------------------------------------------175 feet

Shot#2------------------------------------------240 feet

Shot#3------------------------------------------265 feet

Anyone see the problem???????????????????????????????

After Eisenberg magically moved the third shot back to the actual Z313 position, to insure that we had a shot at this point (had to due to the yellow stripe in the background), now it left only a distance of 25 feet of slant distance between the FBI's magically moved to impact point for shot# 2 and the now final shot#3 at Z313.

Which of course on the ground was in fact less than 25 feet.

Now, at 10mph, the car would have travelled approximately 14.666 feet per second. Therefore, with the reduced distances created by the FBI lie being added to by the Eisenberg lie, it would now mean that the time span between shot#2 and shot#3 as given (in distance) by Melvin Eisenberg to Ronald Simmons, would be approximately 1.7 seconds of elapsed time.

This is where the progression of lies now had the WC in a situation of which they would all have to state another shooter existed, or else come up with an alternative plan to make the TRUE Shot#3/Altgens impact shot disappear.

Obviously, discussions were made (but nothing was ever put into writing) that Shot#2 would just be moved back to around Z234 or so, shortly after JBC came out from behind the sign and could be seen "reacting".

However, the same restrictions of time v. elapsed frames of the Z-film/vehicle speed problems would exist here between Shot#1 and Shot#2 as was created by the moving of the impact points of Shot#2 and Shot#23.

And, since the SS & FBI Survey plats both showed the Altgens impact point, then they absolutely could not be openly revealed to the extent and/or size that anyone could tell it.

And since the Z313 impact point was an "absolute" due to the yellow stripe on the curb of Elm St, then this was and had to stay.

So, now we have a shot impact point on Elm St. which is platted 24.5 feet prior to the Z313 head shot, now having to disappear also, which leaves us with only two shots that we/they/the WC can claim.

Therefore, we have Melvin Eisenberg's drawing of 3/27/64, in which Shot#1 stays the same.

Shot#2 at Z313 becomes the final shot/#3.

And, shot#3, down in front of Altgens is made to disappear from all known record.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0139a.htm

Now, that is truely "MAGIC"!

Hey David! This is far better than any of the "Magic Shows" there in Vegas.

Now you see it, now you don't. And, even when you can see it, (CE585), you still can not see it.

Needless to say, this now created "rapid fire" exercise which was entirely fabricated as a result of completely phony distances, created problems for the shooters.

Just as it would for virtually any qualified shooters.

But since this is quite obviously NOT what LHO/the shooter had to accomplish, I see little to be gained in attempting to duplicate the WC lies.

Especially since I was never so misguided to believe ANY of them anyway.

Never have liked to have to take a "rigged" test!

3. Next, we have the Eisenberg distances as given to Ronald Simmons of Edgewood Arsenal, which were:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances?

Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself?

Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of what those distances are.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First off, one truly should question exactly how it is/was that anyone could come up with the distance for the first shot, when the WC informed us that they could not even determine if the first shot missed, etc; etc; etc;.

Of course, we already know the answer, being that the US Secret Service & FBI both had this distance on their survey plats.

Secondly, the distance of 240 feet which was given by Eisenberg to Ronald Simmons, is the "Make Believe" impact location on Elm St. at which the FBI had made Z313 disappear from it's impact point, and magically move back up the street 24.5 feet prior to the Z313 position.

Lastly, and this is where the lies truly created the confusion, the third/last/final shot down at Altgens position on Elm St was, in these measurements, made to completely disappear, or if one will, moved back up the street to the Z313 position which was the 265-feet slant distance.

So now, Ronald Simmons shooters had the following distances to shoot at:

Shot#1------------------------------------------175 feet

Shot#2------------------------------------------240 feet

Shot#3------------------------------------------265 feet

Anyone see the problem???????????????????????????????

After Eisenberg magically moved the third shot back to the actual Z313 position, to insure that we had a shot at this point (had to due to the yellow stripe in the background), now it left only a distance of 25 feet of slant distance between the FBI's magically moved to impact point for shot# 2 and the now final shot#3 at Z313.

Which of course on the ground was in fact less than 25 feet.

Now, at 10mph, the car would have travelled approximately 14.666 feet per second. Therefore, with the reduced distances created by the FBI lie being added to by the Eisenberg lie, it would now mean that the time span between shot#2 and shot#3 as given (in distance) by Melvin Eisenberg to Ronald Simmons, would be approximately 1.7 seconds of elapsed time.

This is where the progression of lies now had the WC in a situation of which they would all have to state another shooter existed, or else come up with an alternative plan to make the TRUE Shot#3/Altgens impact shot disappear.

Obviously, discussions were made (but nothing was ever put into writing) that Shot#2 would just be moved back to around Z234 or so, shortly after JBC came out from behind the sign and could be seen "reacting".

However, the same restrictions of time v. elapsed frames of the Z-film/vehicle speed problems would exist here between Shot#1 and Shot#2 as was created by the moving of the impact points of Shot#2 and Shot#23.

And, since the SS & FBI Survey plats both showed the Altgens impact point, then they absolutely could not be openly revealed to the extent and/or size that anyone could tell it.

And since the Z313 impact point was an "absolute" due to the yellow stripe on the curb of Elm St, then this was and had to stay.

So, now we have a shot impact point on Elm St. which is platted 24.5 feet prior to the Z313 head shot, now having to disappear also, which leaves us with only two shots that we/they/the WC can claim.

Therefore, we have Melvin Eisenberg's drawing of 3/27/64, in which Shot#1 stays the same.

Shot#2 at Z313 becomes the final shot/#3.

And, shot#3, down in front of Altgens is made to disappear from all known record.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0139a.htm

Now, that is truely "MAGIC"!

Hey David! This is far better than any of the "Magic Shows" there in Vegas.

Now you see it, now you don't. And, even when you can see it, (CE585), you still can not see it.

Needless to say, this now created "rapid fire" exercise which was entirely fabricated as a result of completely phony distances, created problems for the shooters.

Just as it would for virtually any qualified shooters.

But since this is quite obviously NOT what LHO/the shooter had to accomplish, I see little to be gained in attempting to duplicate the WC lies.

Especially since I was never so misguided to believe ANY of them anyway.

Never have liked to have to take a "rigged" test!

This last post did not even go through last night/this morning and I was under the impression that I would have to do the entire thing again.

It would be my hope that everyone has about caught on to how an entire shot has now been made to completely "disappear", as well as the problems which the FBI/Eisenberg "revisions" have now created in the JFK shooting scenario.

Whereas LHO/the shooter actually had 5.8 to 5.9 seconds from first shot to second shot, the WC has now created a scenario in which the person now has only 5.8 to 5.9 seconds from first shot to last shot, and has to somehow "stuff" in a mid-range shot somewhere.

BIG, BIG difference.

And, in addition to this difference, the WC now has to have "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", as they can not effectively place an impact to JBC at either the point 24.5 feet prior to the Z313 shot or the vicinity of JBC

just coming out from behind the sign.

This now also placed them in the position that they had to effectively blame all injuries created to JFK as well as JBC on the two shots which they deemed to inform us of.

Which effectively meant that CE399, now had to take on it's mythical qualities and create the damage to JBC as it was the only one of the two bullets which we are told of that remained intact.

Personally, the ACTUAL shooting sequence in not that difficult at all. Shot#1 to Shot#2 happens to be quite easy with 5.7 to 5.9 seconds.-----------Most underage deer hunters down here can accomplish this without having benefit of USMC markmanship training.

Thereafter, the "rapid fire" from Shot#2 to Shot#3 was the result of a combination of experience with the weapon, combined with USMC training, combined with the fact that the target was in a more horizontal plane, combined with some luck.

It was, for whatever reason, a good shot!

Now, if one could only figure out a way to come up with approximately 2.3 to 2.4 seconds of elapsed time between Z313 and the point at which JFK came directly in front of Mr. Altgens position, since the Z-film method only gives us approximately 1.9 seconds for this travel time.

But then again, not unlike the WC and their survey work and all of their other lies, I never fully believed that the Z-film was completely authentic either.

Tom

P.S. The true "Magic Bullet" had a severely deformed, flattened and bent nose from it's encounters.

double post deleted - dgh