Miles Scull Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 As for the alteration of the Z-film not being undertaken "to excise visual proof of conspiracy," I can only say "phooey." That was precisely why it was undertaken. In inverting that truth, you leave the field wide open to every limited hang-out the CIA and associated drones can dream up. The anti-alterationists have effectively held the field since at least 1975, and have taken us nowhere, precisely as intended. Some of us want to see a very outcome long before another three decades have elapsed.Paul LOL !!! Another three decades has elapsed ??? Your paragraph is basically saying that if you grow bored and aren't happy with the script, then just make one up. The discovery of alteration in the JFK assassination films would be news that would be in every newspaper and on every news station in the world within the first day of its discovery. But that news would have to be verifiable and that's precisely why such evidence never gets past a forum like this. If the bar was ever set any higher to where posters here couldn't no long just be able to step over it, then most of the threads seen here wouldn't exist. That's about as lame as you can get..... So, why are you responding to the posts here? perhaps? Let's see, you've made a career out of responding to posts that you feel aren't worthy of response, that cover it? I suspect that's pretty damn dumb to everyone else but YOU. Dumb enough to respond to each and every post concerning Dealey Plaza film/pics. Wonder why no one gives you credit for film/photo research? Simple, you've done none! Unless of course you call helping Groden hawk his wares in DP on occasion.... Kathy, Just wondering, because David's comments seem responsive, just & accurate. What was edited? A brief appended note of explanation would assist the passing reader, I believe. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 As for the alteration of the Z-film not being undertaken "to excise visual proof of conspiracy," I can only say "phooey." That was precisely why it was undertaken. In inverting that truth, you leave the field wide open to every limited hang-out the CIA and associated drones can dream up. The anti-alterationists have effectively held the field since at least 1975, and have taken us nowhere, precisely as intended. Some of us want to see a very outcome long before another three decades have elapsed.Paul LOL !!! Another three decades has elapsed ??? Your paragraph is basically saying that if you grow bored and aren't happy with the script, then just make one up. The discovery of alteration in the JFK assassination films would be news that would be in every newspaper and on every news station in the world within the first day of its discovery. But that news would have to be verifiable and that's precisely why such evidence never gets past a forum like this. If the bar was ever set any higher to where posters here couldn't no long just be able to step over it, then most of the threads seen here wouldn't exist. That's about as lame as you can get..... So, why are you responding to the posts here? perhaps? Let's see, you've made a career out of responding to posts that you feel aren't worthy of response, that cover it? I suspect that's pretty damn dumb to everyone else but YOU. Dumb enough to respond to each and every post concerning Dealey Plaza film/pics. Wonder why no one gives you credit for film/photo research? Simple, you've done none! Unless of course you call helping Groden hawk his wares in DP on occasion.... edit--objectionable phrase yeah Beckett, what did you edit out of my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 As for the alteration of the Z-film not being undertaken "to excise visual proof of conspiracy," I can only say "phooey." That was precisely why it was undertaken. In inverting that truth, you leave the field wide open to every limited hang-out the CIA and associated drones can dream up. The anti-alterationists have effectively held the field since at least 1975, and have taken us nowhere, precisely as intended. Some of us want to see a very outcome long before another three decades have elapsed.Paul LOL !!! Another three decades has elapsed ??? Your paragraph is basically saying that if you grow bored and aren't happy with the script, then just make one up. The discovery of alteration in the JFK assassination films would be news that would be in every newspaper and on every news station in the world within the first day of its discovery. But that news would have to be verifiable and that's precisely why such evidence never gets past a forum like this. If the bar was ever set any higher to where posters here couldn't no long just be able to step over it, then most of the threads seen here wouldn't exist. That's about as lame as you can get..... So, why are you responding to the posts here? perhaps? Let's see, you've made a career out of responding to posts that you feel aren't worthy of response, that cover it? I suspect that's pretty damn dumb to everyone else but YOU. Dumb enough to respond to each and every post concerning Dealey Plaza film/pics. Wonder why no one gives you credit for film/photo research? Simple, you've done none! Unless of course you call helping Groden hawk his wares in DP on occasion.... edit--objectionable phrase yeah Beckett, what did you edit out of my post? David, right you are. However, anticipating the inevitable reaction from BM, I just point out that, of course, since Kathy deleted your "objectionable phrase," then she will be unable to reveal that "objectionable phrase" without publishing it in her post. This creates an absurdity. BM will notice this & pounce. But, let's hope not, if I mention this in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 LOL !!! Another three decades has elapsed ??? Not, alas, in your reading age, Bill, but we can't have everything. Still, we do, after all, have your wit and charm to sustain us. Your paragraph is basically saying that if you grow bored and aren't happy with the script, then just make one up. Odd, this, as I tend to follow the eyewitnesses. You know, fringe figures like, er, James Chaney. Remember him? The discovery of alteration in the JFK assassination films would be news that would be in every newspaper and on every news station in the world within the first day of its discovery. But that news would have to be verifiable and that's precisely why such evidence never gets past a forum like this. Sorry, Bill, but I appear to have missed your no doubt compelling explanation on this thread of where exactly Chaney vanished to in the the following fakes: Zapruder, Nix and Bell. Perhaps you'd deign to point me in the direction of your disquisition on the matter. As for the US mainstream media, it has as much connection with freedom of speech, truth and accuracy as Pravda in the time of Stalin. If the bar was ever set any higher to where posters here couldn't no long just be able to step over it, then most of the threads seen here wouldn't exist. From the Fosbury to the Miller flop in a generation. The decline of America in a nutshell. Paul “If you toil so for Trask, what would you do for treasure?” John Clarke, Paroemiologia Anglo-Latina, 1639 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) That's about as lame as you can get..... So, why are you responding to the posts here? perhaps? Let's see, you've made a career out of responding to posts that you feel aren't worthy of response, that cover it? I suspect that's pretty damn dumb to everyone else but YOU. Dumb enough to respond to each and every post concerning Dealey Plaza film/pics. Wonder why no one gives you credit for film/photo research? Simple, you've done none! Unless of course you call helping Groden hawk his wares in DP on occasion....edit--objectionable phrase Yes, David you contributions to this forum are quite impressive ... and to think that you are the one who says he is never invited for JFK film showings. And how dumb can I be to have caught you talking out of both sides of your mouth. When I get my laptop back, I will go back to supplying the links to your statements saying just the opposite of each other. Let me share an excerpt from one of those people who you say doesn't give me credit for anything ... and thanks for opening the door for me to have an excuse to share the following quote from an email a received several days ago ... "I think Healy has alot of nerve dissing you, when he sits on the fence. The proper educated way for him to speak would be just an "I don't know for sure--it may be possible." but he's ridiculous in his posting. and the funny part is his buddy, Jack, feels the same way you do about Gordon Arnold and Badge Man. For him to back Jack, and say the stuff he does, shows me he lacks the ability to think clearly." Edited February 4, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) That's about as lame as you can get..... So, why are you responding to the posts here? perhaps? Let's see, you've made a career out of responding to posts that you feel aren't worthy of response, that cover it? I suspect that's pretty damn dumb to everyone else but YOU. Dumb enough to respond to each and every post concerning Dealey Plaza film/pics. Wonder why no one gives you credit for film/photo research? Simple, you've done none! Unless of course you call helping Groden hawk his wares in DP on occasion....edit--objectionable phrase Yes, David you contributions to this forum are quite impressive ... and to think that you are the one who says he is never invited for JFK film showings. And how dumb can I be to have caught you talking out of both sides of your mouth. When I get my laptop back, I will go back to supplying the links to your statements saying just the opposite of each other. Let me share an excerpt from one of those people who you say doesn't give me credit for anything ... and thanks for opening the door for me to have an excuse to share the following quote from an email a received several days ago ... "I think Healy has alot of nerve dissing you, when he sits on the fence. The proper educated way for him to speak would be just an "I don't know for sure--it may be possible." but he's ridiculous in his posting. and the funny part is his buddy, Jack, feels the same way you do about Gordon Arnold and Badge Man. For him to back Jack, and say the stuff he does, shows me he lacks the ability to think clearly." yeah.... sure you did.... uh-huh! Perhaps Groden whispered in your ear, eh..... LMFAO Edited February 4, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 yeah.... sure you did.... uh-huh! Perhaps Groden whispered in your ear, eh..... LMFAO It wasn't Groden, but rather someone on this forum that has seen your countless say-nothing responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 yeah.... sure you did.... uh-huh! Perhaps Groden whispered in your ear, eh..... LMFAO It wasn't Groden, but rather someone on this forum that has seen your countless say-nothing responses. Bill the best you done in 6 years is create a .gif animation (a bad one at that) Time to move on champ.... the following is #4, from the top 25 tactics disinfo agents use on the USENET boards 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/ opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. sound familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) 4. Find or create a seeming element of youropponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. The archives are full of places where I posted your double talk - 'I believe the film is altered ... I have seen no proof of alteration' - If you were knocked down anymore, then you'd have to be declared dead! Edited February 6, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 The archives are full of places where I posted ... ...compelling rebuttals of James Chaney's testimony, as corroborated by etc. Funny, but I can't find one of them. Nor any from the head of the Sixth Form Museum. Odd, that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 The archives are full of places where I posted ... ...compelling rebuttals of James Chaney's testimony, as corroborated by etc. Funny, but I can't find one of them. Nor any from the head of the Sixth Form Museum. Odd, that. Bumpity bump - in celebration of the end of the anti-alterationist case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 The archives are full of places where I posted ... ...compelling rebuttals of James Chaney's testimony, as corroborated by etc. Funny, but I can't find one of them. Nor any from the head of the Sixth Form Museum. Odd, that. Bumpity bump - in celebration of the end of the anti-alterationist case! So, you are unable to support your claim of a missing Chaney in Zapruder so you shift gears and proclaim the argument OVER based on "witness statements". Amazing!!! Your celebration rings just a wee bit hollow. But then again that seems to your MO..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Curious that when people reference photographs or films they seem to do so in an ungrounded way. The axiom seems to be that everything is fixed in time, when there is instead a continuum of time throughout the assassination. How can any claims be made for or against anything without a specifying at least a best estimate what time or frame number is being referenced? Blanket assertions don't have much meaning without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Curious that when people reference photographs or films they seem to do so in an ungrounded way. The axiom seems to be that everything is fixed in time, when there is instead a continuum of time throughout the assassination. How can any claims be made for or against anything without a specifying at least a best estimate what time or frame number is being referenced? Blanket assertions don't have much meaning without it. It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame. There, baffled? Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5 Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame? Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider: Zapruder was on stilts. The Altgens photo is a forgery. The Z film is a forgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Curious that when people reference photographs or films they seem to do so in an ungrounded way. The axiom seems to be that everything is fixed in time, when there is instead a continuum of time throughout the assassination. How can any claims be made for or against anything without a specifying at least a best estimate what time or frame number is being referenced? Blanket assertions don't have much meaning without it. It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame. There, baffled? Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5 Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame? Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider: Zapruder was on stilts. The Altgens photo is a forgery. The Z film is a forgery. You missed the most important solution... Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography. 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