Shanet Clark Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 thanks Jack, at least you still are vigilant............ many of us still relate to the NIX image as a clear alternative film photo of an unknown gunman, the NIX gunman is a bogey in the research just like black dog man, 4th story man, Dal-Tex man, and the north knoll shooter........ NIX requires more analysises False alarm...maybe.I have just spent an hour looking at MY NIX COPY FRAME BY FRAME and there is NO frame that even bears the slightest resemblance to the frame which Bernice found in her files. This raises two possibilites: 1. Bernice's frame came from different Nix copy than is available from Groden. 2. Someone doctored a frame to insert a "person" in a single frame and planted it on the internet at some time in the past, where it was accepted as genuine. By the way...restudying the Nix frames shows that the figure is not in the doorway, but in the first opening north of the pergola, but directly beyond Zapruder from Nix's location. False alarm...or mystery? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Greetings also Charles:Well I am one of those, that think if the person is available, such as he is and he has and is willing to reply to questions posted....on his Forum... Then any suppositions or questions asked on another forum are really fruitless, and it seems to me unfair.. If you do not ask the source then you may never access the information, that you seek. Instead many end up just reading others thinkies and or snide personal remarks.....and come away with the impression that they wish them to have, to me that is allowing someone else to think for you, and is a no no. And also as a member you have yourself never asked him, but that is your perogative, of course.. ... B..... Good point Bernice. And I'll add that Rich is an extremely accessible individual, and his forum is accessible, so both can easily be judged first hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) FALSE, Bill. See post 23 (page from TGZFH) where Rich describes the threeoccasions that he saw the other film...twice at U of Maryland and once while in the air force in a classified job. And you are wrong about the memories matching: 1. All reported SEEING THE LIMO TURN THE CORNER 2. All reported SEEING THE LIMO STOP 3. Plus other less important points. Check the facts before posting misinformation. Jack Let DellaRosa make the entire "other film" archive seen by all and I'll help your memory along. All reported seeing the limo turn the corner? No kidding?? (sigh~) I didn't know anyone said the limo didn't turn the corner, but I remember some back and forth posting where one person who claimed to see the 'other film' ... his tale had Connally reacting to being shot during that turn. Some who claimed to see the 'other film' had given a longer stopping time for the limo than other alleged witnesses to this 'other film'. In fact, I responded 'How many other films can there be with so many variations being discussed?' I remember thinking that it was funny to see how those who immediately claim alteration when a witness says something they believe doesn't jive with the Zfilm and yet the alleged 'other film' witnesses had several various versions on certain aspects of the shooting going on and those same individuals considered all the claims being made to be support of them all seeing the same 'other film'. I bet DellaRosa left that part out of his recollection. Speaking of the past, whatever happened to seamless film comparison's of Dealey Plaza. Seems your were going to undertake that project about 6 years ago, eh? Josiah Thompson, Gary Mack, Dave Wimp and the rest of the merry band non film/photo-alteration fanatics.... Where are they now? Hell, where is the seamless film comparison? Edited August 26, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) I see the man with the tripod and camera directly behind the ZAP position packing up and breaking down scholars and students I am more interested in the featured sharpshooter sniper clearly visualized in the movie The Nix Film Shooter: shanet in atlanta Edited August 26, 2007 by Shanet Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 FALSE, Bill. See post 23 (page from TGZFH) where Rich describes the threeoccasions that he saw the other film...twice at U of Maryland and once while in the air force in a classified job. And you are wrong about the memories matching: 1. All reported SEEING THE LIMO TURN THE CORNER 2. All reported SEEING THE LIMO STOP 3. Plus other less important points. Check the facts before posting misinformation. Jack Let DellaRosa make the entire "other film" archive seen by all and I'll help your memory along. All reported seeing the limo turn the corner? No kidding?? (sigh~) I didn't know anyone said the limo didn't turn the corner, but I remember some back and forth posting where one person who claimed to see the 'other film' ... his tale had Connally reacting to being shot during that turn. Some who claimed to see the 'other film' had given a longer stopping time for the limo than other alleged witnesses to this 'other film'. In fact, I responded 'How many other films can there be with so many variations being discussed?' I remember thinking that it was funny to see how those who immediately claim alteration when a witness says something they believe doesn't jive with the Zfilm and yet the alleged 'other film' witnesses had several various versions on certain aspects of the shooting going on and those same individuals considered all the claims being made to be support of them all seeing the same 'other film'. I bet DellaRosa left that part out of his recollection. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ""Let DellaRosa make the entire "other film" archive seen by all and I'll help your memory along. All reported seeing the limo turn the corner? No kidding?? (sigh~) I didn't know anyone said the limo didn't turn the corner, but I remember some back and forth posting where one person who claimed to see the 'other film' ... his tale had Connally reacting to being shot during that turn. Some who claimed to see the 'other film' had given a longer stopping time for the limo than other alleged witnesses to this 'other film'. In fact, I responded 'How many other films can there be with so many variations being discussed?' I remember thinking that it was funny to see how those who immediately claim alteration when a witness says something they believe doesn't jive with the Zfilm and yet the alleged 'other film' witnesses had several various versions on certain aspects of the shooting going on and those same individuals considered all the claims being made to be support of them all seeing the same 'other film'. I bet DellaRosa left that part out of his recollection."" I didn't leave anything out Miller. Understand this: I related what I saw because I felt it was important. But I don't care if anyone believes me. About 10 years ago the researchers who had the opportunity to view the "other" film submitted their recollections. Of 6 people, all the descriptions matched in all the key details. William Reymond and I were nearly in lock step in our descriptions. All of this occurred long before you darkened our forum so don't post messages like you remember it. NONE of the descriptions had Connolly reacting to being shot at the turn onto Elm. The extant Z film does not show the turn -- that is one significant difference in the "other" film. Please stop making crap up and by all means do not misquote me. I will be glad to answer any questions from bona fide researchers. I invite all to join my forum. Former members booted for cause (i.e. they couldn't behave and play well with others) are not welcome. Awwwwwwwwe Miller they all can join -- but you can't. http://www.jfkresearch.com Think about it: 6 people saw a film, some saw it on multiple occasions, in various locations around the world and their descriptions all match and the film was very different from the extant Z film -- but not just different -- it matched exactly what the closest eyewitnesses reported on Day 1. Please read this article by the late Phil Melanson: http://www.jfkresearch.com/melanson.html I know there are several excellent researchers on the education forum. I have no idea why any would lend you any credence. You are often in error, but never in doubt. Rich DellaRosa P.S. If registrations were not closed on the Ed forum, I would join and address these issues there. But no matter -- my door remains open. B....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 As for DellaRosa I know nothing about except for his reputation for not allowing dissent on his forum, this suggests a narrow minded person locked into his beliefs to me. It's not a leap to image (sic) that such a person could be "a victim of creative memory". A typical judgement of Len Colby's....based upon someone he admittedly knows nothing about. I said that was his reputation, since I’m not inclined to “pay to play” and have no way of seeing for myself I depend on the information reported by others and indeed several people have said that you can get booted from the DellaRosa forum simply for taking positions contrary to the owner’s. People with such divergent views as Craig and John Simkin reporting this leads me to believe it’s true. While the former is often quite truculent and I could see him getting kicked off a forum for that, I can’t say the same about the latter. Though I have had my difference with John and seen him get testy with others as well I can’t imaging him doing something that would have warranted him getting thrown out by DellaRosa, perhaps you disagree? Jack wrote: PS...bad memory. David promised to RESPOND to Zavada. We are still waiting for Zavada's report, or there is nothing to respond to. Jack you’ve got your facts wrong again. Healy promised openly on this forum to “make [his] formal claim soon” several weeks before Zavada said in an e-mail addressed only to Healy and me that he would write a new “thesis” but that it would “take some time”. I have no idea what your co-author meant by “formal claim” or what points he planned to address in it but it obviously wasn’t Zavada’s new treatise unless he’s psychic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Speaking of the past, whatever happened to seamless film comparison's of Dealey Plaza. Seems your were going to undertake that project about 6 years ago, eh? Josiah Thompson, Gary Mack, Dave Wimp and the rest of the merry band non film/photo-alteration fanatics.... Where are they now? Hell, where is the seamless film comparison? Sorry David ... I probably let my personal life get in the way. I was pleased however to see that members of this forum showed that the assassination films were in fact in sync. By the way .... which position on alteration do you hold these days for it appears you have contradicted yourself at times depending on what ever purpose you had at the time for doing so ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0 Post #8 David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15 post #19 David Healy: I go with the Z-film is altered ... This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Feb 4 2007, 01:12 AM Edited August 26, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 As for DellaRosa I know nothing about except for his reputation for not allowing dissent on his forum, this suggests a narrow minded person locked into his beliefs to me. It's not a leap to image (sic) that such a person could be "a victim of creative memory". A typical judgement of Len Colby's....based upon someone he admittedly knows nothing about. I said that was his reputation, since I’m not inclined to “pay to play” and have no way of seeing for myself I depend on the information reported by others and indeed several people have said that you can get booted from the DellaRosa forum simply for taking positions contrary to the owner’s. People with such divergent views as Craig and John Simkin reporting this leads me to believe it’s true. While the former is often quite truculent and I could see him getting kicked off a forum for that, I can’t say the same about the latter. Though I have had my difference with John and seen him get testy with others as well I can’t imaging him doing something that would have warranted him getting thrown out by DellaRosa, perhaps you disagree? Jack wrote: PS...bad memory. David promised to RESPOND to Zavada. We are still waiting for Zavada's report, or there is nothing to respond to. Jack you’ve got your facts wrong again. Healy promised openly on this forum to “make [his] formal claim soon” several weeks before Zavada said in an e-mail addressed only to Healy and me that he would write a new “thesis” but that it would “take some time”. I have no idea what your co-author meant by “formal claim” or what points he planned to address in it but it obviously wasn’t Zavada’s new treatise unless he’s psychic. Actually Len, I was removed from the JFKresearch forum becuase DellaRosa claimed I had cross posted which was false. The biggest problem was of course that I was making the chosen son of that forum look quite the fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 As for DellaRosa I know nothing about except for his reputation for not allowing dissent on his forum, this suggests a narrow minded person locked into his beliefs to me. It's not a leap to image (sic) that such a person could be "a victim of creative memory". A typical judgement of Len Colby's....based upon someone he admittedly knows nothing about. I said that was his reputation, since I’m not inclined to “pay to play” and have no way of seeing for myself I depend on the information reported by others and indeed several people have said that you can get booted from the DellaRosa forum simply for taking positions contrary to the owner’s. People with such divergent views as Craig and John Simkin reporting this leads me to believe it’s true. While the former is often quite truculent and I could see him getting kicked off a forum for that, I can’t say the same about the latter. Though I have had my difference with John and seen him get testy with others as well I can’t imaging him doing something that would have warranted him getting thrown out by DellaRosa, perhaps you disagree? Len Colby states that DellaRosa "has a reputation for not allowing dissent on his forum" as if that had anything to do with whether or not DellaRosa actually saw another film version of President Kennedy's murder. Colby employs no facts whatsoever in making his determination. I've got the utmost respect for John Simkin, but that episode has nothing to do whatsoever with DellaRosa's accounts of the "other film." Len Colby makes his assessment of DellaRosa's veracity based on the above? Maybe Forum members can judge Colby's credibility based on comments from three of its respected members. One could add points for the power of collective female intuition. I am a member of Della Rosa's forum and have been for several years, just as I have also been with several other forums. Len, you do not know what you are talking about, so why did you even bother? Rich runs a tight ship, but he is not dogmatic as you suggest. I have seen dissension on his forum, and in fact, have also not agreed with some things posted. I was never banned for disagreeing with anyone. Yet, I have also heard such rumors as you have stated. Rich does not bam anyone without cause! Most usually that has to do with excessive attacks on another member or with oitright dishonesty or in obvious attempts to smear someone.,,,or with constant desruptive remarks. There has been members who are LN's and who are able to state their own thoughts.Disgruntled banned members are those spreading such attacks against Rich. I take it then you have never been a member..?...But believe gossip..?..Passed along by those who have a grudge to settle...Keep it up, this attitude will take you far in life... I have found that I cannot benefit from discussions with Len, and his remarks on this thread display so many of the qualities that led me to that conclusion.By contrast I can and do benefit from discussions with Rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 26, 2007 Author Share Posted August 26, 2007 My recollection -- and it very well may be faulty -- is that an earlier colorization of the image had HHM holding some sort of optical device in front of his face.I may be thinking of Tom Wilson's work, but I can't shake the memory of the hard hat and what one interpreter labeled the "range finder" in his hands. Does anyone else remember such an image? Charles, you are correct that Tom Wilson using his computer techniques [to his own satisfaction] verified both a shooter with a fired gun in the badgeman location, complete with 'police-like clothes', as well as someone dressed as a soldier in the GA position with a camera with multiple lenses [movie camera with turret] before his face. Tom also found two men in the plaza - one behind the fence and one on the south knoll who had what looked like tubular optical devices [they were the same] and he positied they could have been range-finders or monoculars. I don't want to divert this thread, but we did have one on Tom Wilson and I had behind the scenes worked to move on the Wilson materials being made more public. I have run into some resistance or fear, and need to work on it further and will need help of a few trusted others to help on this [off Forum]. The Wilson materials are very imporant IMO. Tom also found in the Daltex bldg in Altgens a man with an optical device...either a camera or telescope. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixie Dea Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Gee Mike, that was very thoughtful of you to acknowledge Bernice, Myra and myself, as respected members of DellaRosa's forum...as well as, regarding our female intuition...:-) There are some other females of Rich's forum that would also agree with us. As to both Craig Lamson and John Simkin being banned from Rich's forum, we also know the reasons...but then, it is just not my inclination to tell these facts. But, in the case of Craig, I most likely don't need to state the reason anyway....although I have personally never had a conflict with Craig. I also don't believe Rich would ban anyone over just one incident. There have been some banned members (from all the forums) that I hated to see leave, but most of the time the whole forums applauds. Quite often, what I later hear from that person, is not the way it actually was. However, I also belive sometimes some things can be misunderstood or misintrepreted. As I previously mentioned, I am a member of several forums and actually enjoy them all. Each seems to have a different approach to various so-called theories. I personally find this to be quite necessary to my own ways of thinking. Or I should say, to not get bogged down in tunnel vision. Rich has extended an offer for all (except the paat banned membsrs) to join his forum. It is no longer necessary to pay the donation, as before. Although some still wish to do so, to help with his expenses of operating the forum all on his own. Rich is a good man, but he won't take any crap from disrupters. Some of you might find this to be humorous! At one time Bernice, Terry Mauro and I, were known as "Jack'S Girls" (Meaning Jack Ruby's Girls). Then since we three were about the only females on Rich's forum at that time, we decided to become known a s"Rich's Girls." This was mostly just for fun and not actually a part of the forum itself. Sometimes we would help Rich out with some project though. Then once Rich was interviewed on Black Op Radio. He mentioned Rich's Girls and even mentioned our names, as his helpers. We were surprised, but got a big kick out of that. But actually I think we mostly put a lot of laughs and humor in his life, since he is not a well man! But things change and also several other females began joining his forum, so we got away from that classification of being Rich's Girls....although sometimes we still joke about it. I do wish the Nix photo discussion and the other film discussion was on differnt threads, since I feel there is possibly more to discuss about that photo. Thanks again Mike! ____________ Dixie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Gee Mike, that was very thoughtful of you to acknowledge Bernice, Myra and myself, as respected members of DellaRosa's forum...as well as, regarding our female intuition...:-) There are some other females of Rich's forum that would also agree with us. Mr.Hogan, a Nod.....and Myra as well.... As to both Craig Lamson and John Simkin being banned from Rich's forum, we also know the reasons...but then, it is just not my inclination to tell these facts. But, in the case of Craig, I most likely don't need to state the reason anyway....although I have personally never had a conflict with Craig. I also don't believe Rich would ban anyone over just one incident. There have been some banned members (from all the forums) that I hated to see leave, but most of the time the whole forums applauds. Quite often, what I later hear from that person, is not the way it actually was. However, I also belive sometimes some things can be misunderstood or misintrepreted. Yes, there were reasons, and when such does occur, well it is always amazing, I find, that later on, the explanations given by those who were, seem to have a habit of becoming distorted, by the deletions of many of the attributing reasons that seemingly disappear from memory..Has happened on many Forums, and will continue...I have never read of one, ever admitting that they did deserve such, ever..... As I previously mentioned, I am a member of several forums and actually enjoy them all. Each seems to have a different approach to various so-called theories. I personally find this to be quite necessary to my own ways of thinking. Or I should say, to not get bogged down in tunnel vision. Many opinions, read, create, a deeper analyisis, of any research given, and does make people think, of the other side of the coin, instead of becoming bogged down, in one train of thought.. Rich has extended an offer for all (except the paat banned membsrs) to join his forum. It is no longer necessary to pay the donation, as before. Although some still wish to do so, to help with his expenses of operating the forum all on his own. Rich is a good man, but he won't take any crap from disrupters. The Forum has been open, for some time now, that has been announced on here in the past, perhaps a reminder is needed....whatever.... .......Yes, some do contribute, I wish personally more did, as in the past even with the donation being asked for, only 11% of the members did, support the forum for all.... So no, it was never and has never been a money making scheme as has been thrown about at times, on this and other forums, and hashly, though those that did, knew better....That has and always was a false accusation....... We are all aware, that medical bills are extremely astronomical, and he has always given a fee membership, in the past, to any student, pensioner as well as people on disability....knowing what that means himself... Just setting a few repeatedly uttered untruths straight here.....for all........All opinions have always been respected and given the floor, as they say in their posts...the onlys that complain that they have not ,are those that have been booted.....same as on other forums..People never it seems own up...the egos get in the way of course, human nature reigns...and.. Yes, he is a very good man, and why should he take any crap...?..others do not.... . Some of you might find this to be humorous! At one time Bernice, Terry Mauro and I, were known as "Jack'S Girls" (Meaning Jack Ruby's Girls). Then since we three were about the only females on Rich's forum at that time, we decided to become known a s"Rich's Girls." This was mostly just for fun and not actually a part of the forum itself. Sometimes we would help Rich out with some project though. Then once Rich was interviewed on Black Op Radio. He mentioned Rich's Girls and even mentioned our names, as his helpers. We were surprised, but got a big kick out of that. But actually I think we mostly put a lot of laughs and humor in his life, since he is not a well man! But things change and also several other females began joining his forum, so we got away from that classification of being Rich's Girls....although sometimes we still joke about it. Aw Dixer, "Jack's Girls" those were the days, of the Pink Cadillac, and Mink coats...... Well, hecker I am still a Rich's Girl, am not about to give up any titles that have been hard earned, in past years, as well as what may come along in the future.....even the ole "Witchy B.... of the North"..... I do wish the Nix photo discussion and the other film discussion was on differnt threads, since I feel there is possibly more to discuss about that photo. But there is always another aw,.....Notice how good the Some are at "Hijacking a Thread", on purpose, never worry never fear, they will do so again, in the future.. ...same old story......nothing new..... ..They will never change as that is what they set out to do.....with their nasties......let's fool them and get back on the subject title and choose to ignore, ?? sheesh, now that would be different.... Now, are we all having fun...sheesh.....Carry on carrying on....... .. Thanks again Mike! B...... ____________ Dixie Edited August 26, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Perhaps it’s not true that DellaRosa boots people for disagreeing with his views. Dixie seems like a reasonable person and is the 1st person I would classify as such I seen say it’s not true. Since you had to join to even read his forum there was no way for people not willing to pay to judge what goes on there but on the reports of others. While it’s true it’s possible he is being slandered by disgruntled former members I give John the benefit of the doubt when he says he was booted for disagreeing with DellaRosa, especially when someone like Craig whose views are normally the polar opposite of John’s say similar things. I also find it odd I’ve never heard similar things said about alt.jfk, jfkresearch (Yahoo) or this forum. I’ve only heard one person say that about Lancer but that person’s behavior here led me to believe he was axed for his behavior their. In any case I only reported that was his reputation and Dixie confirmed that she has heard such rumors as well. Myra wrote: I have found that I cannot benefit from discussions with Len, and his remarks on this thread display so many of the qualities that led me to that conclusion. Your main gripe with me seems to be that I ask people to document their claims with authoritative sources, doubt the veracity of undocumented claims and question the credibility of personal websites run by people I’ve never heard of who don’t source their claims. You attitude that as long as you can find a website to back your claims that they are credible perhaps suggests “that I cannot benefit from discussions with” you because one can back just about any theory with a webpage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 26, 2007 Author Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Someone correct me if I am wrong. Rich's site can be accessed by anyone for reading. But only "members" can REPLY to certain topics. "Membership" is very easy to acquire. The main requiement is NO DISRUPTIVE PERSONAL ATTACKS. Rich has a very large archive open to all, as I recall. Jack PS I was not aware that Mr. Simkin was ever a member or that he was "banished". Edited August 26, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 26, 2007 Author Share Posted August 26, 2007 Someone correct me if I am wrong.Rich's site can be accessed by anyone for reading. But only "members" can REPLY to certain topics. "Membership" is very easy to acquire. The main requiement is NO DISRUPTIVE PERSONAL ATTACKS. Rich has a very large archive open to all, as I recall. Jack PS I was not aware that Mr. Simkin was ever a member or that he was "banished". Rich has sent me the following: Jack, The forum is totally open to all. Folks need to register but after that all may read AND post. Rich ........ Of course the exception remains that those banished previously may not post. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now