Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?


Recommended Posts

So anybody who claims (like you) that the Zapruder film is altered go against all evidence.

Francis Coli

Do you know what evidence is?

I dont think you do

Send me 9 more emails and I will tell you what evidence is

Yea Dean why don't YOU post some of that "evidence" that the z film is fake. That should be a laugh a second!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So anybody who claims (like you) that the Zapruder film is altered go against all evidence.

Francis Coli

Do you know what evidence is?

I dont think you do

Send me 9 more emails and I will tell you what evidence is

Yea Dean why don't YOU post some of that "evidence" that the z film is fake. That should be a laugh a second!

How far away is your bookshelf Craig?

Do you live in a 1000000sq ft home?

Did you break both of your legs?

What is stopping you Craig?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it exactly you are afraid of Dean?

My scanner might break from the weight of all the evidence

Risks it. Scanners are dirt cheap.

Your fear is palpable.

I fear no LNer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fear no LNer

Then prove it. Post your "evidence" and lets see if it can withstand close technical inspection.

I have seen your "close technical inspection"

Of course you think that JFKs jacket bunched up 3+ inches in a matter of seconds (if that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

But, as a matter of fact, all experts and specialists who have tried to analyze the Zapruder film, WITH TOP-OF-THE-ART EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, have found NOTHING, absolutely no trace of alteration.

...

/François Carlier/

oh Francois, you silly goose you, you haven't an iota of (circa. 1963) technical film lab knowledge. Posting the above utter nonsense is an embarrassment to decent lone nut discussion concerning the subject. So sit down and watch Lamson get his due....

p.s. the alleged in-camera Zapruder film is SUSPECT suck-it-up, son.

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

Posting the above utter nonsense

Francis knows he is in over his head David, of the 100 or so books that he claims to have it seems he has only read two of them, while thats good for Pos and the Bug, its bad for Francis and his rambling posts that every member skips over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen your "close technical inspection"

And it has you quaking in your boots. You can't refute a single bit of it. Heck you can't even understand how the sun works. But you can give it your best shot. Just show the so called "indentation" can produce the Betzner artifact.

Some simple proof of concept photos will do the trick.

Of course you think that JFKs jacket bunched up 3+ inches in a matter of seconds (if that)

I do? Can you please show us all exactly were I said that. You would never misquote me, would you?

Now back to those so called proofs of the Z film alteration. When are you going to post them...and DEFEND them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do? Can you please show us all exactly were I said that. You would never misquote me, would you?

You didnt say that, but you did say that in Towner and Croft we see the same kind of bunching

No matter how much I look at Croft and Towner I cant see a 3+ inch fold, in fact I cant even see a 1 inch fold, all I see is a very small amount of bunching

So my question to you is how did his jacket go from a small bunching of fabric in Croft to a huge 3+ inch fold in Betzner just a second or two later?

It cant happen Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do? Can you please show us all exactly were I said that. You would never misquote me, would you?

You didnt say that, but you did say that in Towner and Croft we see the same kind of bunching

No matter how much I look at Croft and Towner I cant see a 3+ inch fold, in fact I cant even see a 1 inch fold, all I see is a very small amount of bunching

So my question to you is how did his jacket go from a small bunching of fabric in Croft to a huge 3+ inch fold in Betzner just a second or two later?

It cant happen Craig

I'm really sorry but you are very visually impaired.

That however does not change the fact that the fold is the similar in size and shape in Towner, Croft and Betzner.

But tell you what. Why don't you show us the top of the fold in Croft and Towner at its hightest point....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that was not the point!(even though you're still WRONG about all of that, too). The point, as stated in the topic / subject line, is this: In 1963, THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTED TO ACCOMPLISH THE TASK -- period.

Are you really that immunte to clear thinking ?

The point is : whether the technology existed or not, IT WAS NOT USED ON THE ZAPRUDER FILM.

So anybody who claims (like you) that the Zapruder film is altered go against all evidence.

/François Carlier/

DO NOT TELL ME WHAT THE POINT OF MY OWN THREAD IS!!!!

The point of MY THREAD is this: The technology existed to alter the Zapruder Film long BEFORE 1963, which contradicts many "anti-alterationists'" claims.

THAT's what this thread is about!

On the basis of this film from 1928, you are suggesting that the same "technology" could have been used - or better, was in fact used - to alter the Zapruder film of 1963, is that correctly understood?

Greg,

You are once again being an a**hole. Yes, Fetzer is "your friend", and yet you are expecting me, and perhaps a few others - to buy into this amateurish rubbish about what could, and what could not, be done in 1963.

Provide the the proof, that any of this, has got anything to do with the JFK case.

And, meanwhile, climb down from that piedestal you seem to think you're on.

This, Greg, is not Rich DellaRosa's site.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
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

×
×
  • Create New...