Bill Miller Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Talk about being inept! Keep coming back Wild Bill, we CT's need ya, as well as your, er, Lone Nutter's ! Wait a minute, David ... did you not read the 'Hoax' book after it had come out and before you posted that you have seen 'NO PROOF OF ALTERATION - SOMETHING YOU HAVE SAID FOR YEARS'????? Which repeated statement seems to be bothersome, ............... Is it David constantly posting that people are LNRs when they don't agree with him or my using his double talk to show that he is just a mouth-piece for all you alteration cult followers. I would be willing to bet that I can find at least twice as many references to his remarks than mine, so where are the belly-aches for the prior or is there some code of ethics among 'the good ol' boys and gals club'??? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Analysis Proposal:This study shows clear evidence of alteration: I wonder if BM will spot the Bogey? I must say that you make a well detailed case for alteration. I think however that CNN and other news agencies may insist on you being a bit more specific so not to have their listeners think they too have lost their minds. There is a reason that this nonsense is never seen anywhere but on these forums ... can anyone else guess why that is???? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 There's no doubt that the Z-film was altered in some fashion while it was in the hands of Life Magazine. They even printed a couple of frames backwards in one edition of their magazine.... We can believe that ALL of these witnesses were simply wrong and that ALL of these things didn't actually happen---or we can believe that the Z-film was somehow altered to coverup a conspiracy. If you accept that the Zapruder film was altered, then you *must* logically accept that other film and photographic evidence was correspondingly altered, since there is a distinct lack of inconsistency between the photographic and film evidence available. This is something I find unlikely in the extreme. And printing frames in the wrong order does not constitute alteration. Paul. 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