Jump to content

Zapruder film on US (NY?) TV in 1963


Recommended Posts

Funny I see NO response from the 6th Floor Museum here or in any other thread for that matter, unless of course you're claiming to represent them. Is that true, are YOU representing the 6th Floor Museum? Just pass the message on, son -- and regarding this thread topic, it appears Mr. Rigby has you all spun up, again.....

Have you, by-the-way, contacted Mark Lane? There is no foul language allowed here, son... If you can't control yourself, I'll request Ms. Beckett throw your rear-end out of here for breaking forum rules. So, straighten up and fly right, we don't want Gary losing his mouthpiece here, now would we?

David, if Life Magazine ever sees these psychotic say-nothing responses that you continually post ... they are not going to allow you access to these historical materials that you have been bitching for years about them not being laid out for you to examine. You may wish to try and hide your handicap for now and get on that written detailed request for you to be able to examine these materials so to once and for all put matters top rest ... unless of course all your complaining was just a big show!!!

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Funny I see NO response from the 6th Floor Museum here or in any other thread for that matter, unless of course you're claiming to represent them. Is that true, are YOU representing the 6th Floor Museum? Just pass the message on, son -- and regarding this thread topic, it appears Mr. Rigby has you all spun up, again.....

Have you, by-the-way, contacted Mark Lane? There is no foul language allowed here, son... If you can't control yourself, I'll request Ms. Beckett throw your rear-end out of here for breaking forum rules. So, straighten up and fly right, we don't want Gary losing his mouthpiece here, now would we?

David, if Life Magazine ever sees these psychotic say-nothing responses that you continually post ... they are not going to allow you access to these historical materials that you have been bitching for years about them not being laid out for you to examine. You may wish to try and hide your handicap for now and get on that written detailed request for you to be able to examine these materials so to once and for all put matters top rest ... unless of course all your complaining was just a big show!!!

Bill Miller

good, I'm glad you've cleaned up your language... the mod's on this board can be aggressive ya know.... and by all means, forward these posts to LIFE. I have a ferw questions for them too, if any of them are still alive....

Now, you still haven't answered the question do you represent the 6th Floor Museum these days?

Further, looks like old Tom Purvis and Paul Rigby have you all tied up in knots there son.... we're all waiting for something intelligent from you, so don't run and hide behind me... carry on.... (tap-tap-tap)

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good, I'm glad you've cleaned up your language... the mod's on this board can be aggressive ya know.... and by all means, forward these posts to LIFE. I have a ferw questions for them too, if any of them are still alive....

Now, you still haven't answered the question do you represent the 6th Floor Museum these days?

Further, looks like old Tom Purvis and Paul Rigby have you all tied up in knots there son.... we're all waiting for something intelligent from you, so don't run and hide behind me... carry on.... (tap-tap-tap)

Do you not have any idea just how stupid your responses come across??? No one has contacted me about my language and I am not even sure what you are talking about.

Your question about me representing the 6th Floor Museum goes to the idiocy of the responses you make. You seem to rather xxxxx for attention many times over than to just contact the Museum with a simple question so to get your answer. In fact, your remark didn't even detail why you would ask me such a nutty question.

As far as Tom and Rigby ... one thinks Lane wrote about the Zapruder frame stills showing what was on the film, which doesn't make any sense and certainly something that could be presented to Lane either by phone or in writing so to see if I have read it right. Tom cannot see how light passes through the spaces in the tree foliage and you see that as them having me tied up in knots. Maybe you'd like to explain why there are sunspots on the asphalt if light doesn't pass through the tree foliage ... care to play the role of a fool some more? And why should I contact Life Magazine about someone who never had any real plans to take seriously his being allowed to examine their historical film images ... seems like just more of you wasting peoples time to me.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good, I'm glad you've cleaned up your language... the mod's on this board can be aggressive ya know.... and by all means, forward these posts to LIFE. I have a ferw questions for them too, if any of them are still alive....

Now, you still haven't answered the question do you represent the 6th Floor Museum these days?

Further, looks like old Tom Purvis and Paul Rigby have you all tied up in knots there son.... we're all waiting for something intelligent from you, so don't run and hide behind me... carry on.... (tap-tap-tap)

]Do you not have any idea just how stupid your responses come across??? No one has contacted me about my language and I am not even sure what you are talking about.

Your question about me representing the 6th Floor Museum goes to the idiocy of the responses you make. You seem to rather xxxxx for attention many times over than to just contact the Museum with a simple question so to get your answer. In fact, your remark didn't even detail why you would ask me such a nutty question.

As far as Tom and Rigby ... one thinks Lane wrote about the Zapruder frame stills showing what was on the film, which doesn't make any sense and certainly something that could be presented to Lane either by phone or in writing so to see if I have read it right. Tom cannot see how light passes through the spaces in the tree foliage and you see that as them having me tied up in knots. Maybe you'd like to explain why there are sunspots on the asphalt if light doesn't pass through the tree foliage ... care to play the role of a fool some more? And why should I contact Life Magazine about someone who never had any real plans to take seriously his being allowed to examine their historical film images ... seems like just more of you wasting peoples time to me.

Bill Miller

son, you're not a star here.... it's all about the JFK assassination, this is not a job interview.... You've got to come to grips with a few simple facts, Miller... one, you haven't laid hands or eyes on the original Zapruder film... so all this nonsense you post is opinion, O-P-I-N-I-O-N. Therefore, two, until you post something concrete with evidence to support your opinions, you're just another Lone Nut spouting off on any forum that will put up with your arrogance [or a forum you buy into]....

Gary Mack can hold your hand till the cows come home, you won't get the job.... pssst, and forget the grand ideas.... won't happen!

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

son, you're not a star here.... it's all about the JFK assassination, this is not a job interview.... You've got to come to grips with a few simple facts, Miller... one, you haven't laid hands or eyes on the original Zapruder film... so all this nonsense you post is opinion, O-P-I-N-I-O-N. Therefore, two, until you post something concrete with evidence to support your opinions, you're just another Lone Nut spouting off on any forum that will put up with your arrogance [or a forum you buy into]....

Gary Mack can hold your hand till the cows come home, you won't get the job.... pssst, and forget the grand ideas.... won't happen!

David Healy, why would I possibly need to get the original Zapruder film in my hands for according to you ... I'm inept. Zavada has had the film in his hands and I must yield to his far superior expertise for after all - he invented the film that those images were captured on. But I am open to someone only skilled in TV video and making composites who continually bitches that he has not examined or gotten to do the necessary things to authenticate this historical piece of film, but you must first make the request. Is the National Archives supposed to read this forum and say 'Hey ... there is this screwball who seems to never post any actual data, but seems to enjoy bitching about things he won't do anything about, so let us get the Zapruder film out of cold storage and mail it to him so to shut him up!' Now tell me ... does that sound like a rational thing to do??? OK ... maybe asking 'YOU' that question in your current mental state wasn't fair ... let us see if someone else will post that it seems like an appropriate thing for the archives to do in their opinion.

In reflection over the many say-nothing ... never informative responses that you seem to bless us with ... I think that someone hit the nail on the head when they wrote to me the following ...

"I've always seen people like them as having too much free time and loneliness in their hands.

And of course, such (free) online forums are great places for those who feed on trolling.

I believe, these people have serious personal problems. They feel strong and dominant as long as there are people who read their nonsense.

It's always easy to attack someone when you are hiding behind a computer screen rather than being face to face.

I admire your patience and your sense of humor in dealing with these guys."

So you see, David ... you are not fooling anyone. Either make the request to examine these historical images by detailing your qualifications - your concerns - and when you would like to take on this feat ... or stop wasting everyone's time by trying to get attention ... even if its always 'negative attention'.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... so all this nonsense you post is opinion, O-P-I-N-I-O-N. Therefore, two, until you post something concrete with evidence to support your opinions, you're just another Lone Nut spouting off on any forum that will put up with your arrogance [or a forum you buy into]....

I kept this remark separate from my last response so to expose someone who is double talking so to seem like he always has something important to say. This is a person who will complain about someone's opinion without evidence to support it while saying things like 'I believe in alteration' ... 'I have seen no proof of alteration' while not posting a shred of proof to support either statement.

Once again a simple review of David Healy's past responses shows him talking out of both sides of his mouth for no other reason than to xxxxx for a response. If you can see past his misspellings - I offer the following on what he said about "OPINIONS" ...

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...mp;topic_page=4

"This is the internet not a lab, Bill. Opinions STILL carry the day.

Some people share their findings - other's don't. Some share, disinfo - other's, heartfelt research which noone was ever going to SEE or HEAR. Nobody will prove "anything" on this forum or anyother -- They'll be a lot posturing and turf protection, which, quite frankly I've no problem with -- that the way it is, interests to protect and opinions to advance-- PR

David Healy"

On one forum, Healy will say that opinions are nothing without concrete evidence. On yet another forum Healy says that whether one shares their research or not - 'OPINIONS' carry the day.

Want to dance some more, David??? (smile)

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... so all this nonsense you post is opinion, O-P-I-N-I-O-N. Therefore, two, until you post something concrete with evidence to support your opinions, you're just another Lone Nut spouting off on any forum that will put up with your arrogance [or a forum you buy into]....

I kept this remark separate from my last response so to expose someone who is double talking so to seem like he always has something important to say. This is a person who will complain about someone's opinion without evidence to support it while saying things like 'I believe in alteration' ... 'I have seen no proof of alteration' while not posting a shred of proof to support either statement.

Once again a simple review of David Healy's past responses shows him talking out of both sides of his mouth for no other reason than to xxxxx for a response. If you can see past his misspellings - I offer the following on what he said about "OPINIONS" ...

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...mp;topic_page=4

"This is the internet not a lab, Bill. Opinions STILL carry the day.

Some people share their findings - other's don't. Some share, disinfo - other's, heartfelt research which noone was ever going to SEE or HEAR. Nobody will prove "anything" on this forum or anyother -- They'll be a lot posturing and turf protection, which, quite frankly I've no problem with -- that the way it is, interests to protect and opinions to advance-- PR

David Healy"

On one forum, Healy will say that opinions are nothing without concrete evidence. On yet another forum Healy says that whether one shares their research or not - 'OPINIONS' carry the day.

Want to dance some more, David??? (smile)

Bill Miller

opinions are opinions, get with the program son...

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

o·pin·ion Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.

5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

so if YOU want to dance, then get off the stool..... however before you enter the dance floor, let us see your credentials in photo and film compositing, after all why should I or anyone else for that matter want to waste time with a self-proclaimed film-photo wannbe? Doesn't make sense, son.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

opinions are opinions, get with the program son...

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

o·pin·ion Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.

5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

so if YOU want to dance, then get off the stool..... however before you enter the dance floor, let us see your credentials in photo and film compositing, after all why should I or anyone else for that matter want to waste time with a self-proclaimed film-photo wannbe? Doesn't make sense, son.....

It is good to see that you can copy and paste definitions off of the web, but it didn't state why you say contradictory statements like those I cited. And I believe that Tom and I were talking about the timing of Willis #5 and how sunlight passes through tree foliage and onto objects like the cycles - the asphalt - people - and etc.. Maybe I should ask you your expertise in playing a guitar, knowing the record as to what the assassination witnesses said, etc., none of which you seem to have experience in that are not relevant to what Tom and I were talking about.

Come back when you have something to say ... don't waste everyone's time and get on that request for YOU to examine them historical films and slides.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good, I'm glad you've cleaned up your language... the mod's on this board can be aggressive ya know.... and by all means, forward these posts to LIFE. I have a ferw questions for them too, if any of them are still alive....

Now, you still haven't answered the question do you represent the 6th Floor Museum these days?

Further, looks like old Tom Purvis and Paul Rigby have you all tied up in knots there son.... we're all waiting for something intelligent from you, so don't run and hide behind me... carry on.... (tap-tap-tap)

Do you not have any idea just how stupid your responses come across??? No one has contacted me about my language and I am not even sure what you are talking about.

Your question about me representing the 6th Floor Museum goes to the idiocy of the responses you make. You seem to rather xxxxx for attention many times over than to just contact the Museum with a simple question so to get your answer. In fact, your remark didn't even detail why you would ask me such a nutty question.

As far as Tom and Rigby ... one thinks Lane wrote about the Zapruder frame stills showing what was on the film, which doesn't make any sense and certainly something that could be presented to Lane either by phone or in writing so to see if I have read it right. Tom cannot see how light passes through the spaces in the tree foliage and you see that as them having me tied up in knots. Maybe you'd like to explain why there are sunspots on the asphalt if light doesn't pass through the tree foliage ... care to play the role of a fool some more? And why should I contact Life Magazine about someone who never had any real plans to take seriously his being allowed to examine their historical film images ... seems like just more of you wasting peoples time to me.

Bill Miller

Tom cannot see how light passes through the spaces in the tree foliage

My mistake!

I was under the obviously erroneous assumption that the evidence should be evaluated on an empirical standard.

Not the " guess" method!

Had I known that we were going to continue to resolve the assassination issues by the " guess" method, then I would have merely stated "Space Aliens in the Tree with Flashlights", and then we could all go home safe and secure in our knowledge as to exactly how light fully illuminated the motorcycle cop's radio antenna.

Certainly would have saved all of the time and effort in deciphering the Drommer as well as West Survey information, as well as the fact that I could have, long ago, taken considerably more naps during that limited training in photographic imagery evaluation and interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake!

I was under the obviously erroneous assumption that the evidence should be evaluated on an empirical standard.

Not the " guess" method!

I appears that you assumed that everyone heard each and every shot so that when one witness said he saw the second shot hit JFK in the head and another says the last shot hit JFK in the head ... you assumed they were talking about two different shots being fired. Moorman thought the head shot was the first shot ... do you now start telling the world that JFK was shot in the head at three different points in time ... I wouldn't!

Occam's Razor

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake!

I was under the obviously erroneous assumption that the evidence should be evaluated on an empirical standard.

Not the " guess" method!

I appears that you assumed that everyone heard each and every shot so that when one witness said he saw the second shot hit JFK in the head and another says the last shot hit JFK in the head ... you assumed they were talking about two different shots being fired. Moorman thought the head shot was the first shot ... do you now start telling the world that JFK was shot in the head at three different points in time ... I wouldn't!

Occam's Razor

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

this is dancing? ROTFLMFAO! Ya need Arthur Murray.... and, the WCR, and the volumes This keeps up, I'm gonna start ignoring you....

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This extract is from the expanded – eight-page pamphlet version – of Mark Lane’s original article on the case, “Lane’s Defense Brief for Oswald,” published by the National Guardian, 19 December 1963:
”A motion picture taken of the President just before, during, and after the shooting, and demonstrated on television showed that the President was looking directly ahead when the first shot, which entered his throat, was fired. A series of still pictures taken from the motion picture and published in Life magazine on Nov. 29 show show exactly the same situation.”

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html

I saw the Zapruder film in a movie theater in lower Manhattan in December, 1964. I don't recall if it was connected in any way with Mark Lane, but that may be a possibility. My husband Donner, who grew up in NYC, also recalls it being shown, though he did not see it. It is his recollection that it was shown at the Bleeker St Cinema. The Zapruder was shown following the David Wolper film "1,000 Days" which is a black and white upbeat commentary on the JFK administration. Seeing the Zapruder on a big screen (though it was a small theater, the size used for foreign films) was traumatic. The copy that I viewed had good color and flow, and it was obvious to me that everything went backwards. I didn't realize until much later that most people had not seen the Zapruder until it aired on Jeraldo in th 70's with a grainy copy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake!

I was under the obviously erroneous assumption that the evidence should be evaluated on an empirical standard.

Not the " guess" method!

I appears that you assumed that everyone heard each and every shot so that when one witness said he saw the second shot hit JFK in the head and another says the last shot hit JFK in the head ... you assumed they were talking about two different shots being fired. Moorman thought the head shot was the first shot ... do you now start telling the world that JFK was shot in the head at three different points in time ... I wouldn't!

Occam's Razor

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

do you now start telling the world that JFK was shot in the head at three different points in time ... I wouldn't!

With statements such as this, there is little difficulty in understanding exactly why you have not been able to understand the witness testimonies as well.

You truly do need to pay closer attention!

Occam's Razor

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.[/

Three shots! Three hits!

Perhaps you may want to pay closer attention to Occam's Razor yourself.

Not to mention everyday ole common sense.

I must assume that you too are one of those who believed the WC and "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" line of BS.

First off, exactly what form of "logic" would persuade one to believe the WC about anything?

Secondly, exactly what form of "logic" would persuade one to ignore the possibility/probability of a shot after the Z313 impact?

Surely not because the WC told us that Z313 was the last shot fired?

So, exactly where does that place you?

I appears that you assumed that everyone heard each and every shot so that when one witness said he saw the second shot hit JFK in the head and another says the last shot hit JFK in the head ..

In recognition that this is considerably more difficult than "see spot run", I will make a limited attempt to explain it to you one last time.

If, as the majority of witnesses have so stated, three shots were fired!

Witnesses observed the second shot strike JFK in the head!

And, witnesses observed the impact and/or the results of the last shot strike JFK in the head!

Then, JFK was struck in the head by the second as well as the third shot.

Think hard on that and perhaps you can grasp it.

If not, hopefully someone over at Lancer is of sufficient cerebral capacity to explain it to you.

you assumed they were talking about two different shots being fired.

About the only thing "assumed" (which has also been pretty well confirmed), is that you have never read the witness testimonies of the WC, and therefore truly do not know what is stated there.

Just as you know nothing else in regards to the facts of the assassination.

A shot to the head at stationing 4+65.3 (Z313 impact) as fully described by multiple witnesses as being the second shot fired, and a shot to the head at stationing 4+95 (29.7 feet farther down Elm St) directly in front of James Altgens are something that neither I, the US Secret Service, nor the FBI are or were confused about.

You happen to be one of the few that apparantly can not grasp and understand the concept and thusly remain confused.

Surely you are not of the misguided impression that you are smarter than the SS and the FBI in resolving the issues of the assassination??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A shot to the head at stationing 4+65.3 (Z313 impact) as fully described by multiple witnesses as being the second shot fired,

I think it is time that you cite the stats on who said the second shot hit JFK in the head Vs. witnesses who said the third shot hit JFK in the head ... this should being interesting to say the least.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A shot to the head at stationing 4+65.3 (Z313 impact) as fully described by multiple witnesses as being the second shot fired,

I think it is time that you cite the stats on who said the second shot hit JFK in the head Vs. witnesses who said the third shot hit JFK in the head ... this should being interesting to say the least.

Bill Miller

Personally, I would think that perhaps you may actually attempt (for once anyway) to conduct your own research into the subject matter.

Now, that would be interesting, as well as a complete surprise.

Or, continue to remain "lost" for another 25 or so years, as that too is quite irrelevant to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...