David G. Healy

'Mark Valenti' wrote

>>>"doesn't ring true..."? Start with reading the Warren Commission Report, then drop me a note! Makes not one bit difference how many scripts you've wrote, "common sense" is NOT a required condition of reality...>>>

I think you've just identified a key difference in our philosophies. To me, reality requires a heavy dose of common sense. Unless you've never been a parent.

I'm a granfather Mr. Valenti, 4 times over

>>>"horde of movies"? Care to fill us in on what makes up a horde, and said hordes timeline?>>

"Horde of movies, photographs and X-rays" is what I said. Not "horde of movies." Horde means a large group. People are talking about multiple photos and x-rays, along with the Zapruder and Muchmore films being altered. If you don't like the word "horde" how about "snazzy collection of"?

Mr Valenti, do you read what you post, is the above relevant to anything other than self importance?

>>>So, Mr. Valenti... even the staunchest of Dealey Plaza film/photo, non Z-film alteration advocates know some photos in the record were altered, including admissions by '63 era periodicals of doing same (for clarification purposes only, tsk-tsk).>>>

If you're going to bandy about such claims, you'd better be willing to back them up. Give me a list of staunch Dealy Plaza film/photo, non Z-film alteration advocates who know that some photos in the record were altered. You can start by naming five. Ready, set, go.

buy a book Mr. Valenti, buy a book -- T E A C H yourself! Making demands around here, get you nowhere young man

>>>"only time in history..."? roflmao! You do have a lot to learn.... read a few more threads....>>>

Can you teach me, Dave? Please?

whydoes this younger generation want everything handed to them... no free lunch here, Mr. Valenti

>>>Little bit of research goes a long way, but your a screenwriter, we'll forgive the oversight>>>

It's interesting that you assign a low status to my opinions due to a supposed lack of diligence on my part - this is something you couldn't possibly know -- and yet you believe it. Kind of like some half-formed opinions about photo alteration.

low status? How can I assign low status to one that has no knowledge of the subject matter? You're not informed, stick around...

Appears its you who own "uninformed opinions about JFK related alteration issues" follow your intuition Mr. Valenti! Forget the evidence... yet, YOU post seeking information about subject matter you have preconceived opinions of -- not very objective Mr. Valenti

PS: It's "you're" not "your." I believe accuracy counts.

the last vestiage of the uninformed, it's "you're" not "your." roflmao -- please orginality should suit a screenwriter -- btw, I prefer the period outside the quote...

Settle in for a long education Mr. Valenti

-- seeya around the hood

Craig Lamson raves on:

[...]

Sigh..moron healy posts again. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion...not. Get with the program davie. I KNOW this stuff inside and out. You can't even offer a single film composite...so why is anyone LISTENING TO YOU AGAIN?

the ONLY one that matters is YOU, you're listening

Put your sorry butt on the line and offer YOUR limited professional opinion on the matter of reflectivity...show US you have an inkling of understanding of angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. They did teach you that during your long career shooting headshots for the local evening news right?

Save it for the neophytes, Craigster, I contributed to a book, that's ON-THE-RECORD, you? Envy doesn't serve you well! Who would of thought you still photog's get so sensitive when talking about what others record for the masses; catalogue shooting of buses, boats, stoves and refrigerators must be real boring-- Bet you keep foam-core suppliers in business though and;

This is wayout west fella, we don't shoot no stink'in headshots

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

'Bill Miller' wrote:

Once again ... note that Connally's face is still Connally's true image, but after the 'dodging' it appears somewhat cartoonish just as Clint Hill's foot did.

you wanna run that by this old cameraman again? Who did the dodging in this photo? Are you confusing dodging with burning?

Here's why I think so:

Beyond some photographic manipulation from the Soviet Union where they would "purge" certain people from public photographs, I can't recall a single instance - before or after 11-22-63 - where a home movie, a publicly printed picture or network news footage was altered.

Can anybody point to any example of this being done? If so, it makes Z film manipulation seem more plausible.

If not, I believe it runs counter to common sense and precious reality to believe that a horde of movies, photographs and X-rays could be altered over the course of a few hours or even a few days.

Think about what this would mean - highly trained intelligence personnel would have to know - ahead of time - what people would believe about the JFK shooting so that they could "manipulate" the pictures and films to prove something else.

It's beyond mind-boggling to believe this could happen, it just doesn't ring true.

I understand why people go there intellectually but really, is it even remotely possible that this kind of clandestine activity could be carried out? For the only time in history?

It's how things are done in spy novels but is this really how things happen in the real world?

Mr Valenti,

"doesn't ring true..."? Start with reading the Warren Commission Report, then drop me a note! Makes not one bit difference how many scripts you've wrote, "common sense" is NOT a required condition of reality...

"horde of movies"? Care to fill us in on what makes up a horde, and said hordes timeline?

So, Mr. Valenti... even the staunchest of Dealey Plaza film/photo, non Z-film alteration advocates know some photos in the record were altered, including admissions by '63 era periodicals of doing same (for clarification purposes only, tsk-tsk).

"only time in history..."? roflmao! You do have a lot to learn.... read a few more threads....

Little bit of research goes a long way, but your a screenwriter, we'll forgive the oversight.

CLamson strikes AGAIN

[...]

I don't care if its Jack White or anyone...either the claims follow the rules of photography, light and shaodw or they don't. Its called the TRUTH. I thouhg that was everyones stated goal here. Probem is when the TRUTH gets in the way of a good yarn...my oh my.

This claim simply does not follow the rules...its as simple as that.

Rules? When one understands the fine art of professional photo/film compositing, even those long, tried and true techniques, those used by newspapers and magazines, ONE doesn't have to follow *stink'in* rules. Where in the hell have you been...?

<snip the none-sense>

Bill Miller wrote:

[...]

Pat, what I said was that Mack usually has the original photos at the Museum or good quality scans made from them. It could be that Miller or his family still has the original photograph. [/b]

As far as the copyright issue, that's a smoke screen. The photo was printed in the Warren Report.

The Museum has assassination original photos in their possession that are on loan to them for historical reasons, but the original photographer still has the copyrights.

dgh: perhaps the museum will provide a list of original photos (and what film/photo GENERATION) it has on "loan" for "historical purposes"? Better yet, seeing you're the ad hoc spokeperson for Gary Mack, maybe you can provide that list for this forum...?

Below are some examples of how manipulating a photo by contrast or lighting changes can alter an image. This effect seems to occur much more with B&W images due to the limited color tones to work with. I also think that I saw the lines you guys spoke of and if we are talking about the same thing, then I think my initial impression was that they were the result of the scanning of the photo.

dgh: we know all about *dodging and burning*, quite familar with *bleach bypass* also, that craze has made a recent comeback -- AND contrast manipiulation of Dealey plaza film/photo's the best example of that is the Zapruder frames in the WCR and attendent volumes --

btw, what does: "I also think that I saw the lines you guys spoke of and if we are talking about the same thing, then I think my initial impression was that they were the result of the scanning of the photo." mean?

Who scanned what photo?

Bill Miller

[...]

Len Colby wrote:

Funny David,

Pamela's comments basically echoed John's but you attacked her and said nothing about his post. Not enough courage to challenge the big fish eh?

Len

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

perk up buckoo, the big fish are currently represented by *YOU* on this forum, speaking of which... when is the new and improved Zavada report going to be ready? You don't think those of us concerned about the Zapruder film forgot, do you?

I've been ready for sometime now, what's taking your side so long? Or shall we continue to play the DELAY games

'Al Carrier' wrote:

[...]

SS agents are not typical LE officers who work crimes against persons such as agg assaults and homicides and they would not see this as a crime scene. The protection detail focused on protection and their investigative specialties did not go beyond investigating backgrounds of persons suspicious in nature.

[...]

Al

***********

Hmm? Perhaps you can confirm the following: in 1963 most WH/Presidential Detail SS agents came from 'their' rank and file, that being; basic field grunts who do investigative work and undertstand "evidence, particularly evidence concerning counterfiting of US paper money". Is that correct?

Thanks

Participation in a forum where the moderator lacks the

integrity to enforce his own rules against ad hominem

attacks is counter productive. I have better uses to

make of my time.

The coverup provocateurs win again!

Jack

Right, Jack ... your time seems better spent asking people to post pictures of themselves with beards or questioning why they should be viewing the forum at the same wee hour of the morning you were using it. Maybe you might feel more comfortable going back to the looney forum for there you can say two opposite things and no one will point out your mistake.

Bill Miller

So defensive... Must be tough not being the center of attention... of course that doesn't mean you won't try however

'Pamela McElwain-Brown' wrote:

Looks like Jack is still comfortable attempting to make excuses. The Della Rossa forum is extremely intolerant of those daring to expose the truth about their pet theories. One would think that without a T&T windshield hole there was no conspiracy.o

__________________

dgh: you need to stretch, Pamela -- those of us at the DellaRosa forum have ALWAYS been intolerant of THE (deleted) and those that insist on preservering questionable DP photo history -- the topic of the forum is RESEARCH which leads to ideas and original thought, that dear lady make some very uncomfortable...

NO excuses at all, just struggling for truth in a already messed up field of play, for which you've provided no clarity...

And I was there for ALL the nonsense that went on there -- You've a way to go in trumping Doug Weldon's research...

David Healy

I have deleted swearing. Please do not use this language on this forum. (John Simkin)

'Debra Conway' wrote:

[...]

Now I am thinking maybe as long as there is this confusion over how assassination books are accepted, perhaps none should be there.

Sincerely,

Debra

--

JFK Lancer Productions & Publications

http://www.jfklancer.com

good insight Debra -- if it went to a vote on books, I'd say the Warren Commission Report, ONLY... Every book, pamphlet, multimedia piece on the assassination should dwell in the real world: Amazon, Barnes and Noble and broadband internet, well -- the book bin at K-Mart!

'Bill Miller'

....... I seriously doubt that he would reject a book simply because he does not agree with everything in it.

You are correct because if I am correct .... Gary believes that his Badge Man observation is correct, thus he would then keep any books that said that 'only three shots were fired from the rear' from being sold, but he doesn't.

Bill

dgh01: I've got an intertesting concept: the 6th floor Museum is a 501-c-3, non-profit corporation, so ASK Gary who makes the *book* decesions? Is it him, a committee, the BofD's, or a flock of advisors that make the FINAL decesion regarding publications -- Who knows, Gary may be out of the loop. I've never seen a 501c3 non-profit corp that wasn't choked by advisors (some they weren't aware they even had) while trying to make ANY decesion... personally, I could care less what they sell, print or air --

The only place that gives me pause to reflect on JFK, the man and his policies is R E Lee's house above the gravesite at Arlington Cemetary, looking back twoards D.C. No museum fills that hole!

As to a curators personal opinion regarding this case, I would hope he leaves THAT at the front door of the TSBD/Museum

So ask him?

I thought I would start this thread so that Jack White, David G. Healy and Bill Miller can discuss this topic on this thread rather than on Gary Mack's policy of selling and not selling certain books in the Sixth Floor Museum.

LMAO --

John -- I doubt I'll be wasting anymore time on Miller, thanks anyway!

DH

dgh: hmm, Bill needs a break, perhaps? little R&R ....? [LURKER'S, even for those adamant, US, JFK photo/film researchers, the above is a bit over the top ]

On bended knee,

DHealy

Still trolling, David?

Bill

mumwah, me? LOL.

'Bill Miller' wrote:

Bill: ""Gary Mack has had a strong interest in Photography and as you must be aware, he has been affiliated with many experts in that area because of his position there with the Museum.""

Bernice ""Well I am pleased to hear that he responds to you with said information that you may consult him about..re the photos...so he has had no formal training, but through the fortunate experience of meeting with said experts ....

Bill""Bernice, that is not what I said. Even I have had a hands on class in Photography, but that doesn't make me an expert. It is probably best that you contact Gary to learn more about what experience he has had concerning Photography before drawing your conclusions.""

Bernice: Well I did take what you said, to mean that he was no expert, if in error I am sure he will let us know eventually in one of his emails...

Bernice, I will only try and relay this message one more time ... hopefully with more clarity. A person can have formal training in Photography and not be an expert. You implied that I said that Gary has had no formal training and that is not what I had said. You drew an erroneous conclusion that Gary has had no formal training in Photography when I said he 'has had a strong interest in Photography' and I suspect from his answer to your email that this is one type of example to what he was talking about concerning the things you have said. And because Gary has worked with Photographic experts on so many projects and has been there first hand to aks questions, observe, participate, and so on, he is able to pass along valuable information that he has learned through working with these experts.

Gary Mack would not say that he is a Photographic expert any more than I would make such a claim about myself. However, Gary is very knowledgeable about Photography and he has a good understanding of the physics surrounding it. If Gary is an expert in anything, then he is an expert researcher. In other woprds he knows how to find information, retain what he has learned, and is smart enough to apply it to the JFK assassination. Gary is so knowledgeable about the JFK assassination that often times I will cite something in our discussions and if I say even the slightest thing in error, he will always catch it and will explain the differences in what I said Vs. what is rfecorded in the official record.

Bill

dgh: hmm, Bill needs a break, perhaps? little R&R ....? [LURKER'S, even for those adamant, US, JFK photo/film researchers, the above is a bit over the top ]

On bended knee,

DHealy

'Bill Miller or ??? penned:

[...]

An example would be like this ... one see's a bowl of apples and only one has a bite taken out of it while the rest do not. Should one not think that the apple with the bite out of it occurred later after it was picked or should he think they all had bites out of them while formed on the tree, but somehow healed themselves except for the one apple. Logically there should only be one answer.

Bill

Martha, I do believe Larry Peters has returned and making a comeback...! Thanks for the devestating insight...

'Bill Miller'

dgh02: lurkers, this is Bill's way of saying: "how the hell would I know when he numbered the frames."

Hey Baghdad Bob Healy ... that's not exactly what I said, but when do you ever repeat anything correctly. Did I not mention "Nightmare in Dallas" by Richard Trask. Do I need to get Trask book out and read it to you?

dgh03: of course I want a cite, why do you think I believe you? And btw, I could careless what Trask says, when did Shaneyfelt number the Z-frames, to make it really simple for you, when did the Z-frames numbers first appear in public?

Did not Trask say the frames were numbered in January of 64' ... I'm citing from memory here, so call me on it and let me know how far I'm off, if at all, David.

dgh03: -- pour me one of what your drinking, pal.... I believe I'm asking a question about Shaneyfelt NOT Trask, who cares when Trask *THINKS* Shaneyfelt numbered frames, did Trask testify? -- I know its difficult, keep on point...

BTW, that's one of the books the 6th Floor Museum carries, so maybe you should order it ... of course that means someone will probably need to read it to you ... and definitely many times over!

Also, I was interested in knowing what the 6th Floor Museum had to offer in relation to everyone's question, so here is the information I recieved from Gary Mack ...

"Bill,

Well, since you asked, here's the answer. The Museum has seven or eight full sets of the Warren Report and 26 volumes in its collection, acquired from several people including the Phil Willis family and Dallas FBI agent Manning Clements.

The Warren Report is sold in the gift shop and is required reading for anyone wanting the basic information (regardless of whether they believe the conclusions or not).

dgh03: "required" reading? Does that mean I can't gain entry to the museum if I haven't read the WCR? Lurkers notice the word conclusions, not FACTS.

The public is welcome to make an appointment to read them during regular office hours at no charge. The same applies to any video or book in the Museum's library regardless of content or whether it is also available in the store.

Gary"

dgh03: well thanks Gary, we can READ the WCR and volumes at NO charge, that mean the admittance fee is dropped for those that just want to peek at the WCR and the volumes, lol? So, the WCReport IS sold there---- hmm...

That being the case, isn't the Single Bullet Theory (the magic bullet), just that, a theory? NOT grounded in FACT? In FACT, some would say, the theory is ludicrious? A **magic bullet**, makes more sense than a conspiracy, or another shooter? The SBTheory/Magic Bullet is fine with the museums management?

When is the museum going to make available 4x5 trannies of the Z-film frames for public viewing and study? While I have you on the horn here -- do you have Life magazines 8mm-16mm blowups (done by Mo Weitzman prior to the 8mm to 35mm) of the Zapruder film, or the NIX film blowups UPI had Weitzman's lab do, or does Groden have those?

Keep up the good work, Bill -- Now for Shaneyfelt, when did he say he numbered those frames...

Bill Miller

'Bill Miller' dronned on:

[...]

I gather that Shaneyfelt had numbered the frames for his analysis which started in January 1964. I believe you will also find that ingotmation in Trask book "Nightmare in Dallas". I think you'll find the answer to many of your questions if you first take the time to study the case in more depth than just trolling forums.

dgh02: lurkers, this is Bill's way of saying: "how the hell would I know when he numbered the frames."

LMAO, I believe Shaneyfelt started his analysis before Jan. '64 -- You might try reading the books you suggest others read.... eh?

Bill Miller

'Bill Miller' continued his dance:

<snip>

dgh01: duh.... that is the camera AZapruder said he used. Is there **other** film Abe Zapruder ran through the B&H414 during the year he alledgedy owned it, if so, I'll certainly consider it.... But you know, hiding and changing the subject from emulsion and grain structure of the Z-film to this nonsense has not gone unnoticed....

The topic at the time pertained to whether altering film would be detectable or not. The information I presented came from talking to experts and people knowledgeable about the history of the Zapruder film. Who did you consult again? All I recall at this time was you asking was where did Costella ever say that the Zapruder film images in Life Magazine were altered ... something you would have known had you actually read Costella's web page before recommending to others to go see it.

dgh02: Bill, the question there isn't what I know, its what you know, I was there when he presented, I don't recall you being there at all, were you? ---

...

Glad you feel that Gary would be a good source for such information for he has told me that you obviously have never bothered to read one word of documentation about how and why it was absolutely impossible for more than three prints to have been made.

dgh02: Course I think Gary's a good source, he's got a nasty job, how many times daily does he have to tell you what to post for him? That alone would make one shudder.... but he handles it with grace and aplomb. He simply has you do his work....

He has also told me that you ignorant as to Zapruder having shot home movies for several years prior to the assassination and that he had a nice Bell & Howell projector so he could actually show his home movies to his family.

dgh02: he had a "nice" projector? Grace, pure poetry in motion.... gotta love these Lone Neuter's. Now, does Zavada know about these "other" Zapruder B&H414 'nice' home films?

dgh01: ............ Back to LIFE: those Novemer issue b&w images? LOL -- the ones that look like they were drawn with a crayon? The unnumbered ones, those the ones your talking about? -- Yeah, I've seen 'em, got all the Life Magazines here, what do you need to know about 'em? Got the 'STOP the PRESSES' version too...

Maybe you'll feel this question has merit enough for you to address it .... Please tell this forum how soon after the assassination did Life make their prints from the Zapruder film? Don't confuse their printing date with what I have asked ... I am talking about the date Life Magazine actually made their copies off the Zapruder film. I look forward to a simple and honest answer ... for a change!

dgh02: I'd ask Dr. Thompson that if I were you. Whats the time LIFE had for anything got to do with alteration of the Z-film and its presentation to the Warren Commission? So, when did FBI agent Shaneyfelt do the numbering of the Z-frames, AGAIN?

I think you need a refresher course in the .john mcadams school of disinformation, your becoming an embarassment to the Lone Neuter cause --

Seeing how you have become known as the Baghdad Bob of the JFK assassination community - I'll ignore your last remark. If you just address the original question put to you we will have accomplished something.

dgh02: Memorial day, Baghdad Bob, what's a veteran and a patriotic American to think, Bill? You serve by-the-way?

-- get your film emulsion and grain facts together -- your gonna need them, no ducking for cover, you're the photographic guy, tsk-tsk!

Bill Miller

Bill Miller wrote

[...]

Say, your so knowledgable maybe you can tell us WHO numbered and WHEN the Zapruder frames were numbered? Huh Sherlock?

David, there are several well kown books out there that details the things you seem oblivious of. It might benefit you to take some time and actually study the case.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Bill Miller

dgh01: ah.... I read his testimony years ago, the question was and still is, WHEN did he (Shaneyfelt) number the frames?

'Bill Miller'

dgh: speculation, there's that buzz word again....? How about, the Single Bullet THEORY SBT, how'd anything to do with THAT make it in?

I hardly consider my being there and hearing the information being shared between Gary and Robert first hand as "speculation", but maybe you are just wanting to appear intelligent again like you did when you tried to tell me there was a difference in the terms "enlarged" and "blown-up" when discussing Photography.[/b]

dgh01: oh, I suspect you were right in the middle of the conversation lmao! I don't know, Bill -- there's been so many things you post that need correction, most of us have given up that ghost moons ago.... it's simply assumed you have difficulty with subject beyond your realm of expertise, whatever that might be...

dgh: WHY? most know whats there... Put Gary's explanation right here, yourself...

dgh01: we're waiting...

dgh: A question does pop into my mind though; does the museum have for sale, the complete set of Warren Commission books and the final Warren Commission report? If not, why NOT?"

Obviously everyone doesn't know what's there are you would not be asking a silly question about a set of books that were limited in numbers when printed ...

dgh01: a mueum's (dedicated to a slain president?) front door, not 150 feet from the scene of a assassination of the President of the United States... and it does or doesn't have the governments (for the people - after all we paid for it AND the Zapruder film, too) "formal conclusions" of said investigation on its premises? If it doesn't, that speaks volumes too!

have not since been reprinted in over 41 years ... and are only found on Ebay or in Book Shops where they have usually have taken them on consignment from private owners.

dgh01: I see, maybe the Zapruder family will purchase one for the museum, they can afford it? We do know, certain DP film/photo originals, copies of whatEVER generation are under the guidance and care of the 6th Floor Museum. So, is a copy of the WCReport and attendent volumes at/or on DISPLAY at the museum?

Bill Miller

I was standing on the knoll last Fall listening to Gary and Robert Groden talking about the Museum's criteria for the sale of books (conspiracy or otherwise).

dgh: I'm sure they're BOTH tickled over book sales and museum admission numbers [for fees of course ]. A question does pop into my mind though; does the museum have for sale, the complete set of Warren Commission books and the final Warren Commission report? If not, why NOT?

I had the impression that the Museum would consider selling a conspiracy book that called into question the lone assassin theory if it dealt with fact, but they did not want books that were dilluted with mere speculation.

dgh: speculation, there's that buzz word again....? How about, the Single Bullet THEORY SBT, how'd anything to do with THAT make it in?

Has anyone bothered to contact Gary Mack for a defined explanation as to what the Museum will or will not stock in the book store?

dgh: WHY? most know whats there... Put Gary's explanation right here, yourself...

Bill Miller

'Francesca Akhtar' wrote:

[...]

Some of the expressions are unique to Italian and don't translate too well into English particularly one phrase used to refer to Rolando Maferrer. The nearest thing I can translate it into English would be a 'bent policeman' but I don't know what the equivalent expression would be in 'American English'. Crooked cop maybe?

[...]

"bent policeman" = *crooked cop* or *a cop on the take* (accepts bribes, takes payoffs, etc)

Jack wrote

[...]

Robert Groden copied the missing frames from the Secret Service copy.

The frames are missing only on the LIFE original.

[...]

Here is the Stemmons 212 missing frames splice, which in my unexpert opinion

is impossible...since the ends of the film are butted together, not overlapped.

But what do I know?

Jack

__________________

Jack, I doubt the film was hot spliced at what we know as, the Stemmons splice. As I doubt the WC had ANY question regarding the authenticity of the Z-film...

BMiller wrote endlessly...

David, what gets you into trouble is that you are one of these guys who reads the headings and never the text so to really know what you are talking about.

dgh01: of course I don't know what I'm talking about, Gary Mack told you so, right ? Did Gary tell you AZapruder lied about what he was paid for the Zapruder film? ....maybe Gary will show up here and tell us himself -- there are those that want answers, I suspect RZavada could use a few answers about a certain septum problem. If you can stop your huffin and a puffin long enough to make use of your unending spare time, maybe, just MAYBE your worth more than your displayed dead weight around here.... like show us a film shot through Zapruder's B&H414...?

Then when you are called on it ... you quickly dance away in another direction.

dgh01: no dancing champ, just reach back and find a question that merits me answering it, but first of course your gonna have to provide me and all the lurkers out here your bonfides for even participating in trhese discussions, eh?

Case and point: You started out saying, "And how would he know? Is ANYONE sure Abraham Zapruder knew the difference between a projector and a film printer? I don't think so." By first just asking someone who has had contact with the members of the Zapruder family over the years ... you would know that Zapruder had shot home movies for years prior to the assassination, but rather than you actually seeking information beforehand, you do what you always do and that is to just plant suspicion unnecessarily.

dgh01: plant suspicion? LMAO! Got plenty of suspicious questions, that apparently have no clear answers, that's why their questions.

So without addressing the errered assumption you had implied, you then switched gears and referenced specifically a B&H414.

dgh01: duh.... that is the camera AZapruder said he used. Is there **other** film Abe Zapruder ran through the B&H414 during the year he alledgedy owned it, if so, I'll certainly consider it.... But you know, hiding and changing the subject from emulsion and grain structure of the Z-film to this nonsense has not gone unnoticed....

So I will now ask the following question in light of your maneuvering ... Are you suggesting that Zapruder's specific camera and/or projector looked so much like a printer that he would not be able to visually tell the difference?

dgh01: somebody, please, buy this guy a drink -- listen up Willy, did Zapruder run more film through his B&H414 camera before or AFTER the assassination sequence? If so, has Roland Zavada seen same? This isn't rocket science, Gary's right there, ask him?

And in the future you should cite those sources that you're talking about because as we learned with the Costella web page that you promoted so often ... you didn't know he had 'screwed your pooch' by saying the alterations had already been done before Life Magazine ran the Zapruder film stills shortly after the assassination. In other words you are known to incorrectly promote things based on not actually knowing all the facts.

dgh01: you ever find a Physicists to back your nonesense? Yeah, that's what i thought, just more conjecture from your side, wishful hoping -- but I understand -- Back to LIFE: those Novemer issue b&w images? LOL -- the ones that look like they were drawn with a crayon? The unnumbered ones, those the ones your talking about? -- Yeah, I've seen 'em, got all the Life Magazines here, what do you need to know about 'em? Got the 'STOP the PRESSES' version too...

Say, your so knowledgable maybe you can tell us WHO numbered and WHEN the Zapruder frames were numbered? Huh Sherlock?

I think you need a refresher course in the .john mcadams school of disinformation, your becoming an embarassment to the Lone Neuter cause --

And how would he know? Is ANYONE sure Abraham Zapruder knew the difference between a projector and a film printer? I don't think so.

IMO ... No one cay answer that anymore than they can assume that he didn't know the difference.

Bill Miller

which renders Abe's declaration....what? Pure window dressing...

David, Zapruder had shot home movies and projected them on his projector for years, so what are you implying here ... that Zapruder somehow couldn't visually tell the difference between a projector and a printer because in your view they look identical somehow?

Bill Miller

He did? Any other films shot with the B&H414? How long did he have the B&H414 again? Maybe someone should tell Rollie about this, dont ya think? Any confirming documents regarding the same?

Implying? Read my words... research Watson, simple research -- ... Maybe Gary can tell us how many labs Abe Zapruder was in during his film career, and tell us if he, A. Zapruder knew the difference between a film projector and a film printer?

And how would he know? Is ANYONE sure Abraham Zapruder knew the difference between a projector and a film printer? I don't think so.

IMO ... No one cay answer that anymore than they can assume that he didn't know the difference.

Bill Miller

which renders Abe's declaration....what? Pure window dressing...