Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack.

[Pat Speer]

Studies by the very experts cited by those claiming people are not consistently wrong also indicate that eyewitnesses to a dramatic event approximate the length of the event as twice as long as its actual time. This means that, for them, time slows down. As a result, a limo slowing down to 4-5 mph might appear to have slowed to a near complete stop.

Scratch an anti-alterationist, and you tend to find a Warren Commission lawyer at work:

Apparently the witnesses were mistaken in remembering that the car stopped; motion pictures, according to the Commission, contradicted them. Yet it seems clear from the way counsel led witnesses that the Commission had considerable resistance to inferences which might be drawn from evidence that the car had stopped at the first shot. “Stopped” was transformed into “seemed to stop” and then “into slowed down.” Such leading of witnesses, which would have been challenged in a courtroom, was facilitated by the Commission’s closed hearings…

The films of the assassination have not been released for public showing, although it is possible to see the most important one, the Zapruder film…at the National Archives. That film does not seem to support the witnesses who said that the car stopped dead. This being so, it is baffling that counsel conducted the questioning somewhat improperly and why the Report presents this evidence with some lack of impartiality…

Sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities & The Report (NY: Vintage Books, June 1992 reprint), pp.4-5

Miss this leading of witnesses, did we, Pat? How very convenient.

That's a valid point, Paul. But how many of these witnesses later claimed the limo did come to a complete stop and that they'd been pressured into saying it did not? And that they believed the Z-film is fake?

That would be zero, I believe.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Pamela Brown]

Farley is defending the indefensible. This is ridiculous. It is not his eyes that are lying.

Why would one person, much less more than a dozen, report a stop if there were none?

Let's try an experiment. Let's each of us get into our (automatic) cars, put the car in drive, and head out into the street (not a busy one). Then turn to look into the rear of the vehicle, and remain in that position for at least 30-seconds. What have you done with your feet? Did you take your foot off the gas pedal? Did you put your foot instinctively on the brake?

This is what Greer did during the assassination. Just how far or fast was he going while looking back at JFK?

[Paul Rigby]

That's a valid point, Paul. But how many of these witnesses later claimed the limo did come to a complete stop and that they'd been pressured into saying it did not? And that they believed the Z-film is fake?

That would be zero, I believe.

Your problem here, Pat, is that you know, I know, and every one reading this knows, that you've never conducted any properly systematic survey of the eyewitnesses' responses to the Z fake - which renders your insistence that "zero" believe the film to be fake, well, at most generous, a nonsense. You don't know, and we know you don't.

What we do know, and can prove, is that the WC:

a) failed to call witnesses it considered inconvenient;

sought to browbeat into submission those it considered malleable; and

c) revealed to the attentive - or should that just be "honest"? - reader the existence of two versions of the Z fake:

Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2:

The Commission explained the method it used to designate the individual frames of the film for purposes of reference: “The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street. The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm,” (223).

Note 223 to chapter 3 is to be found on p.423 – it cites WCR at 98. On p.418, Lane explains that the version of the WCR he used was the one published by the “U.S. Government Printing Office (1964).”

And you ask us to discount eyewitness testimony which contradict the Z fakes and their supporting filmlets?

Now why would you want to do that?

[Michael Hogan]

Sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities & The Report (NY: Vintage Books, June 1992 reprint), pp.4-5:

Apparently the witnesses were mistaken in remembering that the car stopped; motion pictures, according to the Commission, contradicted them. Yet it seems clear from the way counsel led witnesses that the Commission had considerable resistance to inferences which might be drawn from evidence that the car had stopped at the first shot. “Stopped” was transformed into “seemed to stop” and then “into slowed down.” Such leading of witnesses, which would have been challenged in a courtroom, was facilitated by the Commission’s closed hearings…

The films of the assassination have not been released for public showing, although it is possible to see the most important one, the Zapruder film…at the National Archives. That film does not seem to support the witnesses who said that the car stopped dead. This being so, it is baffling that counsel conducted the questioning somewhat improperly and why the Report presents this evidence with some lack of impartiality…

The above passage is representative of the shoulders of Sylvia Meagher, on which so many researchers have

since stood. Accessories After the Fact tore the Warren Commission to shreds and has stood the test of time.

Historians in 2063 will study her work, long after everyone that was alive during that time has shuffled off this mortal coil.

In her classic almost understated style, Meagher proved that the Commission did more to avoid the truth than it did to find it.

As Meagher and other early researchers have documented, the Commission was able to construct a house of cards by avoiding

many important witnesses altogether. In absence of having to confront a defense the Commission, with its collective legal background,

knew that it would be difficult, but attainable to adopt a narrative of its own design. And that is exactly what they did.

More recently, Gerald McKnight has done a good job of confirming what Meagher, Weisburg and a few others knew long ago.

Researchers on different sides of different issues are often guilty of using selected Warren Commission testimony, and many times

only a sentence or two at a time, in an attempt to make their particular case.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lee, I have no axe to grind with you. I am observing that there is clear and convincing evidence, from witnesses who were highly qualified, that Greer brought the limo to a stop. How could Hargis, Chaney, and Martin, who were ridding beside it as its motorcycle escort, be mistaken about this? The improbability of these three being wrong about this is miniscule. You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but that does not make your beliefs either rational or true. In light of the evidence I have cited, there really is no reasonable alternative to the conclusion that the limo came to a halt. No one was watching Greer's feet! But the limo was the most conspicuous feature of the witnesses visual field.

All our beliefs are "in our head", as Jack observed, but I am dumbfounded that you would so blatantly disregard the evidence. It follows that, since the car stop is not in the film, if there was a stop, then the film has been altered. But take it one step at a time. Notice that, given their various locations, some may only have seen it slow down--but, since it had to slow down in coming to a stop, that would be expected in a case like this. There is no inconsistency between those who saw it slow down and those who saw it come to a stop, unless they were positioned where it would have been obvious to them had it not come to a stop. Taken in its totality, there is no reasonable alternative to the car having stopped.

Farley is defending the indefensible. This is ridiculous. It is not his eyes that are lying.

Why would one person, much less more than a dozen, report a stop if there were none?

There even appears to be some agreement between them about where the limo stopped.

Those who reported the stop included Roy Truly and at least four motorcycle patrolmen.

How can Hargis, Chaney, and Martin report that the limo stopped and be wrong about it?

They were in the best possible position to observe it. They were ridding right beside it!

The probability of the evidence (these reports) if the limo came to a stop is extremely

high; the probability of the evidence if the limo did not come to a stop is extremely low.

The evidence not only favors the hypothesis, but there is enough to make it acceptable.

Hi Jim

Pleased to meet you. First off. Thank-you. You have helped me make sense of lots of different aspects of the case over the years. Just not this one.

I've made my point on previous posts.

This is the problem with a forum such as this - your message gets lost amid a myriad of separate messages and you end up going around in circles.

The conception point of me dragging myself into this discussion was to ask people within the community to come together in creating a 34 month plan and strategy to counter some of the things that the "other-side" will be doing over the same period.

I now feel like I'm on the "other-side" because I'm not what you (and Larry Dunkle funnily enough) call an "alterationist".

This one issue fragments the research community into smaller factions. I'm actually waiting for the People's Front of Judea to throw their hand into the fray at some point (Splitters!)

Have you noticed the "other-side" never fragments Jim? They always stick together. Not for a second are they off topic. There's no such thing as pro-Mannlicher Carcano and anti-Mannlicher Carcano brigades in their ranks.

Three days has been enough for me arguing this point versus that point with people who I considered myself to be on the same side of. You obviously don't think I am and all because I won't accept what "you believe" on one topic. I feel like I'm back in the Catholic Church and I'm also having flashbacks of reading 'The Crucible' for the first time.

Take care bud - but think I'll stick with the other threads on learning more about the people side of the assassination.

Regards

Lee

[Pat Speer]

That's a valid point, Paul. But how many of these witnesses later claimed the limo did come to a complete stop and that they'd been pressured into saying it did not? And that they believed the Z-film is fake?

That would be zero, I believe.

Your problem here, Pat, is that you know, I know, and every one reading this knows, that you've never conducted any properly systematic survey of the eyewitnesses' responses to the Z fake - which renders your insistence that "zero" believe the film to be fake, well, at most generous, a nonsense. You don't know, and we know you don't.

What we do know, and can prove, is that the WC:

a) failed to call witnesses it considered inconvenient;

sought to browbeat into submission those it considered malleable; and

c) revealed to the attentive - or should that just be "honest"? - reader the existence of two versions of the Z fake:

Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2:

The Commission explained the method it used to designate the individual frames of the film for purposes of reference: “The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street. The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm,” (223).

Note 223 to chapter 3 is to be found on p.423 – it cites WCR at 98. On p.418, Lane explains that the version of the WCR he used was the one published by the “U.S. Government Printing Office (1964).”

And you ask us to discount eyewitness testimony which contradict the Z fakes and their supporting filmlets?

Now why would you want to do that?

There are dozens of witnesses of the assassination still alive. If you or anyone else seriously thinks the limo stopped, and that this proves the Z-film is fake, you are gonna need to track these witnesses down, and show them the film, and get them to state, in writing, that they believe the film to be fake. Otherwise, no non-believer will take your claims seriously.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The ludicrous arguments coming from Pat Speer have convinced me that I have been mistaken in supposing that he is sincere. Everyone knows that evidence gathered earlier is more reliable than evidence gathered later, which applies especially to eye and ear witnesses. There are major differences between direct perception, recollections via memory, and in court testimony. The reports from the witnesses that were collected and collated here are our "best evidence" with regard to witness testimony about the car stop. The motorcycle patrolmen's reports are decisive. And the other reports confirm them, as I have already explained.

That's a valid point, Paul. But how many of these witnesses later claimed the limo did come to a complete stop and that they'd been pressured into saying it did not? And that they believed the Z-film is fake?

That would be zero, I believe.

Your problem here, Pat, is that you know, I know, and every one reading this knows, that you've never conducted any properly systematic survey of the eyewitnesses' responses to the Z fake - which renders your insistence that "zero" believe the film to be fake, well, at most generous, a nonsense. You don't know, and we know you don't.

What we do know, and can prove, is that the WC:

a) failed to call witnesses it considered inconvenient;

sought to browbeat into submission those it considered malleable; and

c) revealed to the attentive - or should that just be "honest"? - reader the existence of two versions of the Z fake:

Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2:

The Commission explained the method it used to designate the individual frames of the film for purposes of reference: “The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street. The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm,” (223).

Note 223 to chapter 3 is to be found on p.423 – it cites WCR at 98. On p.418, Lane explains that the version of the WCR he used was the one published by the “U.S. Government Printing Office (1964).”

And you ask us to discount eyewitness testimony which contradict the Z fakes and their supporting filmlets?

Now why would you want to do that?

There are dozens of witnesses of the assassination still alive. If you or anyone else seriously thinks the limo stopped, and that this proves the Z-film is fake, you are gonna need to track these witnesses down, and show them the film, and get them to state, in writing, that they believe the film to be fake. Otherwise, no non-believer will take your claims seriously.

Edited January 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Kathleen Collins]

Duncan

I had no idea that you are the offical spokesman for Gary Mack

I thought I was.

Kathy C

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: pp.4-5:

That film does not seem to support the witnesses who said that the car stopped dead.

As in so many other matters, Sylvia was telling it like it is.

Physicist Luis Alvarez examined the film in the mid - seventies and noticed that the limo SLOWS DOWN ABRUPTLY well before the fatal shot. Perhaps because Warren critics became fixated on Alvarez's bogus JET EFFECT theory, few researchers (including even David Lifton, as far as I can tell) realized the importance of the final part of his paper dealing with the abrupt limo slowdown.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=442

This abrupt slowdown, clearly measurable on the Zfilm according to a Nobel-winning physicist, is enough to make a prima facie case against Will Greer. It is not necessary to prove that he brought the limo to a dead stop; it is enough to know that he kept the limo as close to walking speed as possible, while not making his behavior appear too strange.

Greer was well-prepared, and did not panic. He did exactly what he was supposed to do: SLOW DOWN THE LIMO, but don't make it obvious e.g. by bringing the car to a dead stop.

The alterationists will have to do much better than the so-called limo stop before they can expect to be taken seriously.

[Edit: And PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE read the recent thread on USING THE FORUM.]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15256

Edited January 16, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Jack White]

That's a valid point, Paul. But how many of these witnesses later claimed the limo did come to a complete stop and that they'd been pressured into saying it did not? And that they believed the Z-film is fake?

That would be zero, I believe.

Your problem here, Pat, is that you know, I know, and every one reading this knows, that you've never conducted any properly systematic survey of the eyewitnesses' responses to the Z fake - which renders your insistence that "zero" believe the film to be fake, well, at most generous, a nonsense. You don't know, and we know you don't.

What we do know, and can prove, is that the WC:

a) failed to call witnesses it considered inconvenient;

sought to browbeat into submission those it considered malleable; and

c) revealed to the attentive - or should that just be "honest"? - reader the existence of two versions of the Z fake:

Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2:

The Commission explained the method it used to designate the individual frames of the film for purposes of reference: “The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street. The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm,” (223).

Note 223 to chapter 3 is to be found on p.423 – it cites WCR at 98. On p.418, Lane explains that the version of the WCR he used was the one published by the “U.S. Government Printing Office (1964).”

And you ask us to discount eyewitness testimony which contradict the Z fakes and their supporting filmlets?

Now why would you want to do that?

There are dozens of witnesses of the assassination still alive. If you or anyone else seriously thinks the limo stopped, and that this proves the Z-film is fake, you are gonna need to track these witnesses down, and show them the film, and get them to state, in writing, that they believe the film to be fake. Otherwise, no non-believer will take your claims seriously.

No one should take Speer seriously. I am going to start a new thread where we examine each of the 59 witnesses one at a time.

Jack

[J. Raymond Carroll]

No one should take Speer seriously. I am going to start a new thread where we examine each of the 59 witnesses one at a time.

Jack

Jack: Start as many threads about Pat Speer as you like, but PLEASE, please DELETE the post you are replying to before you type your imperishable words of wisdom, so that YOUR WORDS will STAND OUT ALONE for the benefit of posterity

Edited January 16, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Pamela Brown]

The above passage is representative of the shoulders of Sylvia Meagher, on which so many researchers have

since stood. Accessories After the Fact tore the Warren Commission to shreds and has stood the test of time.

Historians in 2063 will study her work, long after everyone that was alive during that time has shuffled off this mortal coil.

Nonetheless, Sylvia Meagher was a researcher, not a witness. She was not there; they were. The witness statements need to be weighed and evaluated more heavily than simply what a non-witness says.

[Michael Hogan]

The above passage is representative of the shoulders of Sylvia Meagher, on which so many researchers have

since stood. Accessories After the Fact tore the Warren Commission to shreds and has stood the test of time.

Historians in 2063 will study her work, long after everyone that was alive during that time has shuffled off this mortal coil.

Nonetheless, Sylvia Meagher was a researcher, not a witness. She was not there; they were. The witness statements need to be weighed and evaluated more heavily than simply what a non-witness says.

That's exactly what she did.

[David Lifton]

Craig Lamson:

You are theorizing and speculating about what the test films will show.

The time has come to examine the test films, and see what they show.

We then proceed from there.

There will be plenty of time to theorize ---e.g., that the test films are "worthless" (as you are now predicting)--AFTER they have been examined, and AFTER THEY SHOW (as I believe they may well show) that frames from the test films do NOT show full flush left (and certainly do not show "BEYOND full flush left").

But the test films must be examined.

That's the proper and logical way to proceed.

Should it turn out--for example--that the Zapruder camera was put at full zoom, and pointed at a well lit clock (as the second hand swept round and round, in order to determine the camera speed); and should it turn out that, even at FULL ZOOM (which is where Zapruder set the lens), the camera does not repeatedly produce frames that are FULL FLUSH LEFT (not to mention "BEYOND full flush left") then that would be very important indeed.

But again, its futile to speculate.

As I said: the issue of authenticity is critical, and the time has come to view the test films, not predict the outcome--and already be indulging in explanations as to why the test films are "worthless."

DSL

1/11/2010; 9 PM

Los Angeles, CA

I'm not "speculating' at all Lifton, I'm stating simple photographic fact. If the properties of the image circle of a lens eludes you, prehaps you need to bone up a bit before you comment. It's not my problem the "alterationists" don't have the first clue how this stuff works, that YOUR problem.

The test films were NOT shot on a full sun day, as the you tube videos show ( you do know how to read shadow properties..correct?)

If the clock footage was not shot at light level EQUAL to a full sun day, they too will be USELESS for comparison for your silly full flush left argument. Why? Because the lens will not be stopped down to the same extent as one filming on a FULL SUN day.

So whats the difference, in f-stops, between full sun and cloudy bright? Lets check.

Based on the standard sunny 16 rule, of 1 over the iso speed of the film at F16, gives us 1/25 at f16 for Zapruders camera. Since he was shooting at 1/40 of a second (roughly 1 stop difference from 1/250 that puts his lens at f11.

Now what are the settings for cloudy bright? Answer, Two stops LESS than a full sun exposure. The test footage from the plaza would have been taken in the F8 range, a considerable difference.

YOU want us to believe that there is any REAL value comparing images shot in the f16 range with those shot in the F8 range? And do you have the knowlege to even understand WHY?

Unless your inspection of the test films is grounded with a full understanding of the process involved in their creation, we can fully discount your opinions on the subject. And based on your anwers to date, you are lacking the even the basic knowlege needed.

Here's what an image circle looks like, just to jump start your much needed learning process.

This is the image circle projected by a Hasselblad 50mm lens mounted on a 4x5 Horseman view camera and recorded on Type 55 b/w Polaroid film. F stop is unknown. You can however clearly see that the image formed by the lens softens and darkens as it vignettes at the very edge of the image circle.

Why don't you get back to us when you know the subject matter.

I am forced to agree with Lamson on his final statement. Too many researchers DO NOT UNDERSTAND PHOTOGRAPHY.

Lamson is wrong to include Lifton, but many others make comments displaying a basic ignorance of the most basic

fundamentals. In recent discussions of duplicate film generations, some demonstrated no grasp at all that Kodachrome

film is a color reversal film and requires no negative. Its negative is "built in" and is removed in the reversal process

which exposes the color dyes. Therefore a Kodachrome film (1st generation) when copied to another Kodachrome

film creates a SECOND GENERATION copy...not a third generation.

In Lamson's demonstration, he shows that many factors can affect exposure; the one he demonstrates (aperture)

is certainly a factor in image coverage of the film plane. Despite his other faults, Lamson DOES understand photography.

However...it is UNKNOWN whether in the B&H camera Lamson's demonstration would be a factor.

Jack

Mr. Lamson:

Yes, of course the amount of light will affect the degree of intersprocket penetration. So sorry for the imprecision in my previous post(s), and so grateful to be corrected by a man of your expertise and erudition. But rest assured: the issue of full flush left has not been resolved by your lecture.

Here's some common ground: the test films were not shot at full day sun. Agreed. Then here is my suggestion: let's make this a test of Zapruder's camera, and not your ego.

So I welcome an outdoor test at full day sun; or, even better, ANY test--indoors or outdoors--in which Zapruder's camera is put at full zoom, faces a clock with a sweeping second hand going round and round, and the light intensity increased, a notch at a time.

Now you have thirty years experience in photography--so maybe you can do a preliminary test. One with a "garage sale" Zapruder camera, just like the one Rollie Zavada had.

Because what is being explored here is the basic architecture of the lens and the associated optical system. I agree with Rollie Zavada--there will be increased penetration of the inter sprocket area with increased light intensity. (Yes, I am well aware of that). But, as more and more light is blasted through the lens, when will we (finally) achieve "full flush left" and--even more important Mr. Lamson, when will we achieve "beyond full flush left", and (furthermore) achieve that effect frame after frame after frame--just as the existing (and supposedly "camera original") Zapruder frames show?

Do you really know the answer to that question—or just think that you do?

Just how much "light blasting" will be necessary to achieve that, Mr. Lamson: perhaps after the camera has melted?

Let me remind you that the device being tested is Zapruder's camera, not a laser weapon.

The proper tests ought to be conducted. Your theories (and predictive powers) are not a substitute for the proper test (or are you so self involved you have forgotten that?)

You brag about being an empiricist. Actions speak louder than words.

Or are you the type of fellow who, at the racetrack, makes a bet, and then is so certain of the outcome, that he demands payment for the horse he bet on, BEFORE the race is run?

DSL

1/16/10; 3 AM

Los Angeles, CA

[Craig Lamson]

Mr. Lamson:

Mr. Lifton: (my reply in purple)

Yes, of course the amount of light will affect the degree of intersprocket penetration. So sorry for the imprecision in my previous post(s), and so grateful to be corrected by a man of your expertise and erudition. But rest assured: the issue of full flush left has not been resolved by your lecture.

I never said it was resolved. What I said and will continue to say is that you have not made a case that your claim has merit. Clearly you have not. You offer handwaving based on ignorance in place of hard data and you squirm when you get called on it.

Here's some common ground: the test films were not shot at full day sun. Agreed. Then here is my suggestion: let's make this a test of Zapruder's camera, and not your ego.

I’m all for testing, and in fact scolded you for doing NONE. But why test Zapruder’s camera? You have not made the case that what is seen the Zapruder film is out of the ordinary. Handwaving is not a substitute for fact. Where is YOUR testing that leads to your flawed conclusions?

So I welcome an outdoor test at full day sun; or, even better, ANY test--indoors or outdoors--in which Zapruder's camera is put at full zoom, faces a clock with a sweeping second hand going round and round, and the light intensity increased, a notch at a time.

How about some testing…FROM YOU…that shows there is a problem in the FIRST INSTANCE?

Now you have thirty years experience in photography--so maybe you can do a preliminary test. One with a "garage sale" Zapruder camera, just like the one Rollie Zavada had.

Let’s see, YOU make a specious claim based on handwaving and ignorance and when confronted with the fact you have not made the case there is a problem in the first instance you want SOMEONE ELSE to do the work YOU failed to do?

Simply fricking amazing! But not unexpected, as it is the industry standard for alterationists

Because what is being explored here is the basic architecture of the lens and the associated optical system. I agree with Rollie Zavada--there will be increased penetration of the inter sprocket area with increased light intensity. (Yes, I am well aware of that). But, as more and more light is blasted through the lens, when will we (finally) achieve "full flush left" and--even more important Mr. Lamson, when will we achieve "beyond full flush left", and (furthermore) achieve that effect frame after frame after frame--just as the existing (and supposedly "camera original") Zapruder frames show?

You simple can’t get the simple concept that more light WILL NOT be “blasted through the lens”. The facts are the exact opposite. The lens will LIMIT the amount of light that can pass through the lens and on to the film.

If you can’t even understand this very basic concept, the odds of you understanding the rest of the technical issues involved are slim to none.

Do you really know the answer to that question—or just think that you do?

The answer to what question? That you have shown there is a reason to suspect the Zapruder camera cannot expose to fill the entire aperture plate?

I KNOW that answer. You have not supported your claim. It fails on its face.

Just how much "light blasting" will be necessary to achieve that, Mr. Lamson: perhaps after the camera has melted?

My I do love watching you put your ignorance on display. How much light? Just a normal, cloudless full sun day.

Let me remind you that the device being tested is Zapruder's camera, not a laser weapon.

Let me remind you your intelligence is being tested. And found wanting.

The proper tests ought to be conducted. Your theories (and predictive powers) are not a substitute for the proper test (or are you so self involved you have forgotten that?)

So do the tests, prove you have a valid question about the B&H 414 camera.

You brag about being an empiricist. Actions speak louder than words.

What actions are you suggesting? That I do YOUR work for you?

Or are you the type of fellow who, at the racetrack, makes a bet, and then is so certain of the outcome, that he demands payment for the horse he bet on, BEFORE the race is run?

Sadly, for you we are not at the track. You might have better luck there than you are having with this silly claim.

DSL

1/16/10; 3 AM

Los Angeles, CA