Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is the "Other" film a hoax?


Guest Duncan MacRae

  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the "Other" film a hoax?

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      14


Recommended Posts

So someone actually took time to add that detail to the logo on the flag. O.K. !!!!

I guess detail was added to the stonework of the TSBD, in the upper right side of the photo, too.

Or, maybe the newspaper version is a copy from a better generation Altgen's, than what is available, regardless of what doctoring/airbrushing/ etc,etc was done to the original.

chris

This details the problem with using repro images to judge photo quality, too many unknowns to make a firm conclusion. In your example of the z frames in Life yes they do look different but why? Is the original film different? Where there differences in the quality of the dupe photos from the original frames? Were the sep films shot differently? Did the guys at the film stripping table get the the one page slighlty out of register? Where the forms on which each page was placed tun on a different press? On a different day? By a different pressman? Was a printing plate out of register? Did they make adjustments to the color fountains to compensate for an ad images that ran just above or below the z frames on the form? Did they use makeready pages in bindery, made while getting the press "up to color"?

I know you do prepress, were you around pre-digital? When sep films were made in a process camera and films cut and pasted, by color layer, by guys using razor blades and red litho tape? Lots of silly things happened in this workflow. Heck even today with current tech and the best presses and pressmen around its still a crapshoot when you have the same image span two pages and jump the gutter. Getting both halfs to match is nutty. I have piles of examples of the same image in a brochure looking different from one page to the next.

Craig, sorry for being off topic.

Is my memory playing tricks with me or do your posting show up much later?

I was sure there was no posting from you hours ago, but now it's up. Did that happen always or am i mistaken?

I may have missed many of your previous postings as well. Not sure

Anyway

best

Martin

My posts must be reviewed by a moderator before making it into a thread. Sometimes it takea a day or more to get approved. Its the price I pay for being me :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Personally Bill, I think Zappy and Sitzman were on the pedestal, I think Zappy shot film, I think that was used with the "other" film to create what we know today as the Z-film

I just get tired of my fellow alterationists being made fun of and called out on the Zappy/Sitzman issue in regards to being clearly seen in any film or photos during the assassination.

Dean, your fellow alteration supporters are getting what they deserve in my view. For instance, I had one of them going on years ago about there was no clear image of Sitzman being in the Plaza and yet the woman turns and faces Zapruder's camera just prior to the assassination. That footage is taken at the colonnade with Sitzman talking to her friends - the Hester's. Then there is the interview of Sitzman at the pedestal ,,, pictures of Sitzman near the TSBD ... all showing her in the same clothes as seen on the woman at the pedestal. So why does another poorly researched alteration claim have to be made from all of this ... the answer may be what I just said 'poorly researched'.

As far as the Zapruder film being mixed with the alleged 'other film' .... that is impossible and here is why ...........................

It has been said that the other film is amazingly sharp ... the Zapruder film is not. The other film would have to be taken from another location than Zapruder's, this means it would be impossible to combine frames from the two films for they would not match when it came to the line of sight ... it would make Zapruder appear to have changed filming locations and that just didn't happen.

The other film could not have been shot from the doorway of the shelter or from within the windows on the walls because not only would Sitzman and Zapruder be in the shot (which no one has claimed so far) but the Bezner and Willis photos show a good view of the interior of that shelter and no one can be seen anywhere.

Bill

Bill:

You never responded to this: I do want to be accurate as to your position. Many thanks,

Doug Weldon

Bill Miller, on 25 March 2010 - 08:42 PM, said:

Josiah Thompson, on Feb 16 2010, 01:05 AM, said:

First question: Is it the case that Altgens #5 (taken at Z 255) shows damage to the windshield? Or is it the case that no discernible damage to the windshield is present in Altgens #5?

Second question: Would you agree that Altgens #6 shows damage to the windshield in the approximate spot where Frazier's notes and photo show damage to the windshield? Can you discern any difference between the damage shown in Altgens #6 to the windshield and the later damage to the windshield memorialized in Frazier's notes and photo?

Josiah Thompson

I cannot believe that some still think they see a hole in the windshield in Altgens 6, but if all they have is the less than sharp image Jack posted, then I can understand the mistake.

In the full Betzner photo there was a black woman holding what looks to be a rolled up newspaper in her hand as she is waving at the President passing by. JFK had not yet been hit when Betzner took his photo. As the car rolled passed and as the woman lowered her newspaper - Altgens took his photo at a time that at least two shots appear to have been fired. A good quality Altgens 6 photo shows no hole/nebula, but rather the black woman's hand holding onto the newspaper she had with her.

When Altgens took his 7th photo, the windshield was obviously damaged by that point. If one does a hi-res scan of that damage and reverses the image so to be compared to the White House Garage photo of the windshield, then in my view they cannot be the same windshield. The damage in Altgens 7 shows a good size frosted area of glass that the sunlight is illuminating. That frosted appearance can be from nothing else than the many cracks in the glass from a projectile hitting it. The White House Garage photos show only a small chip in the glass and no multitude of cracks that would pick up sunlight as what happened in Altgens 7.

Somewhere between this forum and Lancer's there should be images that were created showing what I have just said to be true.

Bill Miller

Bill:

Though I do not wish to reengage this thread. To Peter McGuire: No, the shot could not have come from the right side. To Bill Miller: I believe your post was clear but I would like everyone to understand what you are stating. You are stating that the damage seen in the windshield in Altgen's 7 is NOT the same as the damage seen in the windshield in the WH Garage photos? Correct? Therefore, you are stating that the windshield seen in Altgen's 7 was changed to another damaged windshield before or at the time the limousine arrived at the WH Garage? Correct?

My best,

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill:

Though I do not wish to reengage this thread. To Peter McGuire: No, the shot could not have come from the right side. To Bill Miller: I believe your post was clear but I would like everyone to understand what you are stating. You are stating that the damage seen in the windshield in Altgen's 7 is NOT the same as the damage seen in the windshield in the WH Garage photos? Correct? Therefore, you are stating that the windshield seen in Altgen's 7 was changed to another damaged windshield before or at the time the limousine arrived at the WH Garage? Correct?

My best,

Doug Weldon

Hello Doug,

There is no doubt in my mind that the so-called nebula in the Altgens #6 hole claim is made up of the black woman's hand which is holding a rolled up newspaper. I have studied this extensively and I am 100% certain of my conclusion.

Now about the White House Garage photos .... What was said above is accurate. I took a hi-resolution scan of a good print of Altgens #7 and cropped out the damage seen on the windshield. I reversed it and tested it against the chip in the glass in the White House garage photos ... namely the best close up that was taken.

One of the things that jumped out at me is that Altgens #7 shows a large amount of frost around the defect in the windshield. This frost appearance is caused by the many fine cracks in the glass that are being illuminated by direct sunlight hitting them. I think we all know what I am talking about here. I couldn't even guess at all the fine cracks that make up the frosty appearance seen in Altgen's #7.

The White House Garage photo that I concentrated on was the good clear close up of the chip. The windshield surrounding the border of that chip appears pristine ... no fine cracks are discernible at all. I personally do not see how this can be dismissed. The defect in the glass in the White House garage photo is in the right location, but if my memory is correct .... the large cracks extending outward did not match between Altgens #7 and the White House garage photos in my opinion for what that's worth. However, until proven otherwise, the frosting of the glass in Altgens #7 that I have mentioned tells me the two windshields in question are not the same.

Bill Miller

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally Bill, I think Zappy and Sitzman were on the pedestal, I think Zappy shot film, I think that was used with the "other" film to create what we know today as the Z-film

I just get tired of my fellow alterationists being made fun of and called out on the Zappy/Sitzman issue in regards to being clearly seen in any film or photos during the assassination.

Dean, your fellow alteration supporters are getting what they deserve in my view. For instance, I had one of them going on years ago about there was no clear image of Sitzman being in the Plaza and yet the woman turns and faces Zapruder's camera just prior to the assassination. That footage is taken at the colonnade with Sitzman talking to her friends - the Hester's. Then there is the interview of Sitzman at the pedestal ,,, pictures of Sitzman near the TSBD ... all showing her in the same clothes as seen on the woman at the pedestal. So why does another poorly researched alteration claim have to be made from all of this ... the answer may be what I just said 'poorly researched'.

As far as the Zapruder film being mixed with the alleged 'other film' .... that is impossible and here is why ...........................

It has been said that the other film is amazingly sharp ... the Zapruder film is not. The other film would have to be taken from another location than Zapruder's, this means it would be impossible to combine frames from the two films for they would not match when it came to the line of sight ... it would make Zapruder appear to have changed filming locations and that just didn't happen.

The other film could not have been shot from the doorway of the shelter or from within the windows on the walls because not only would Sitzman and Zapruder be in the shot (which no one has claimed so far) but the Bezner and Willis photos show a good view of the interior of that shelter and no one can be seen anywhere.

Bill

I think the position of TOCM (The Other Camera Man) in Betzner is close enough to Zappys line of sight that frames would match up

And im not saying both films were matched up and ran together to create the Z-film, but certain things were used from both films (and it could be a small part of the frame not the whole frame itself) to produce what we see today in the Z-film.

Im sure you know of the position of TOCM as he appears in Betzner, but i will post a close up anyways in case other members dont know where TOCM is in Betzner

l_b5ae2007c0aa47f6b626439ac36df189.jpg

Edited by Dean Hagerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the position of TOCM (The Other Camera Man) in Betzner is close enough to Zappys line of sight that frames would match up

And im not saying both films were matched up and ran together to create the Z-film, but certain things were used from both films (and it could be a small part of the frame not the whole frame itself) to produce what we see today in the Z-film.

Im sure you know of the position of TOCM as he appears in Betzner, but i will post a close up anyways in case other members dont know where TOCM is in Betzner

l_b5ae2007c0aa47f6b626439ac36df189.jpg

Dean,

To start with .... such a gigantic figure would be seen in Moorman's photo, but much clearer, which brings me to another point ... do you not know how large this figure is considering the further distance he would be from the camera? I ask that you re-evaluate that possibility.

I can tell you this from experience .... a change of a few steps throws the image out of perspective and the frames would not match from film to film. No better example of this came when Jack thought he had achieved Moorman's line of sight by stepping off the curb and shooting her photo from in the street. The angles to anything in both films would be quite different to one another.

Could someone of used a portion of one film to make another - like what??? Both the altitude and longitude would be different to any object seen on each film. Furthermore, the alleged 'other film' was said to be quite clear and sharp ... Zapruder's film is full of panning and motion blur. To even crop a portion of one frame from a different film would not only show that portion to be clearer than the rest of the frame it was inserted into, but the degree of both motion and panning blur could be measured and established which would show they do not match.

Also, the objects in one film would appear to be a different size at the same moment in the other film as both cameras would be at different distances to the scene. Portions of the background around each subject would not align. Even if two cameras at each location shot a still photo of the President at the same time ... the portions of the President that are seen in relation to his immediate surroundings would be very different. I honestly have thought about this in the past and cannot logically find a way to make what you claim might have happened to be even remotely possible for the reasons I have stated.

I am afraid that the matter is not as easy as you think it would be ... I'd say impossible for there are too may variables that would stand out. If you have a reason for saying that you believe it to be possible, then you didn't detail it so it could be considered.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill:

Though I do not wish to reengage this thread. To Peter McGuire: No, the shot could not have come from the right side. To Bill Miller: I believe your post was clear but I would like everyone to understand what you are stating. You are stating that the damage seen in the windshield in Altgen's 7 is NOT the same as the damage seen in the windshield in the WH Garage photos? Correct? Therefore, you are stating that the windshield seen in Altgen's 7 was changed to another damaged windshield before or at the time the limousine arrived at the WH Garage? Correct?

My best,

Doug Weldon

Hello Doug,

There is no doubt in my mind that the so-called nebula in the Altgens #6 hole claim is made up of the black woman's hand which is holding a rolled up newspaper. I have studied this extensively and I am 100% certain of my conclusion.

Now about the White House Garage photos .... What was said above is accurate. I took a hi-resolution scan of a good print of Altgens #7 and cropped out the damage seen on the windshield. I reversed it and tested it against the chip in the glass in the White House garage photos ... namely the best close up that was taken.

One of the things that jumped out at me is that Altgens #7 shows a large amount of frost around the defect in the windshield. This frost appearance is caused by the many fine cracks in the glass that are being illuminated by direct sunlight hitting them. I think we all know what I am talking about here. I couldn't even guess at all the fine cracks that make up the frosty appearance seen in Altgen's #7.

The White House Garage photo that I concentrated on was the good clear close up of the chip. The windshield surrounding the border of that chip appears pristine ... no fine cracks are discernible at all. I personally do not see how this can be dismissed. The defect in the glass in the White House garage photo is in the right location, but if my memory is correct .... the large cracks extending outward did not match between Altgens #7 and the White House garage photos in my opinion for what that's worth. However, until proven otherwise, the frosting of the glass in Altgens #7 that I have mentioned tells me the two windshields in question are not the same.

Bill Miller

Bill:

Thanks for confirming your position. As you are aware I disagree about Altgen's 6 but I understand people are seeing many things, a hand, a dress, a purse, a hole, etc. If you watch my presentation I did in Minnesota (as can be seen on you-tube) you can see that there were several versions of that area of the photo. I believe you noted that one newspaper had distorted the photograph. My question would be WHY? As to Altgen's 7 and the WH Garage photo which was allegedly made that night during the FBI exam my questions would be the standard ones: Who? When? Where? Why? As you know , one of the agents (Taylor, Jr.) who rode in the vehicle from the AFB to the White House Garage sat in the passenger seat during the drive to the WH Garage and could see the windshield the whole time and later in his report said there was a small hole in the windshield from which it appeared that bullet fragments had been removed. I am not going to rehash the whole discussion but I believe your observation here is extremely interesting, especially with the standard four questions I ask above. Your observations alone have to cause you to ponder this carefully. I hope you don't mind if I use your observations in my writing, with, of course providing credit to you for your personal observation.

My sincere thanks,

Doug Weldon

Edited by Doug Weldon
Link to post
Share on other sites

gigantic figure

Bill

I need to find all my studies on TOCM and post them for you

Duncan and I went through this some time ago and I for sure proved that while the man was tall (Like an Orville Nix 6'6 type tall) but not gigantic as you claim

l_3585d0c1bf2b49d88238704c0fe55e25.jpg

I have much much more Bill, just give me time to dig it all out

Dean

Edited by Dean Hagerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote Bill Miller;'' Dean, your fellow alteration supporters are getting what they deserve in my view. For instance, I had one of them going on years ago about there was no clear image of Sitzman being in the Plaza and yet the woman turns and faces Zapruder's camera just prior to the assassination. That footage is taken at the colonnade with Sitzman talking to her friends - the Hester's. Then there is the interview of Sitzman at the pedestal ,,, pictures of Sitzman near the TSBD ... all showing her in the same clothes as seen on the woman at the pedestal. So why does another poorly researched alteration claim have to be made from all of this ... the answer may be what I just said 'poorly researched'.

Bill speaking only for myself, as far as those photo frames , the one of Sitzman being interviewed after,and those of her seen on the sidewalk in front of the tsbd after, were not available a few years ago, perhaps to you or some but they were never shared if so, until Robin, obtain the films, and copied frames showing her within, one time some years back i did have a copy of the gif of the hesters and marilyn shown by zapruder before the motorcade came but that was not readily available,either and then it was lost , and for a few years it was not available on the web at all, until someone perhaps you obtained that early part of the zapruder film and created that gif, which also was not readily available and disappeared some time ago, until again Robin had access and posted his gif of such for all, about a year or so ago, if it or any of these were available to those who cannot do the gifs from films etc, they were not shared, and please leave the ask Gary part alone, the one time i did make a request some years back to him it was about an article he had written about the wiegman film in one of his copies of his magazine, i asked if it was possible for a copy as i was studying that film at the time, i received a reply to the effect he had them in a box the magazines, and the article was not available, so i still wait, i did not bother to ask further,

I just want you to realise that even though perhaps these films etc were available to you, and others, who also knew how to capture frames and prepare gifs, all did and do not, so i wanted to make it clear to Dean and others, whomever is interested, that the playing field has not been even, as some have had the availability of such, but to those that had a different opinion than them, they were not it appeared, as they certainly were not shared, ,,but thanks to Robin who has shared with all, perhaps and hopefully so,this is showing that the new younger generation of researchers such as Robin and martin hindrich who also shares so willingly,,it is a sign of more open minds than some within the older generation,though there are some within that older generation that did,, not enough did so imo... i am sorry to say, as well as to those who still hoard information and such and they are out there, without a doubt,,so cheers for Robin..and Martin, .

and yes she may be seen clearly Marilyn in the pre motorcade zapruder film,clip,as well as after in some frames, but her facial features are not seen clearly within the photos and other films taken that day just as zapruder's features are not,...while.on the pedestal.if there, which until we do see them clearly, will and has created doubt within the studies, as each are entitled to their own opinion and should not be ridiculed, nor mocked for such. and those who do so have proven they lack a sense of fairness and open mindedness within the studies as they continue to do so and have never appeared to learn...........imo...b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites

The alleged Sitzman photo(s) and/or frame(s) are inconclusive, IMO. However, even assuming that they are pictures of her--still--she is NOT the person who FILMED THE ASSASSINATION. Abraham Zapruder allegedly did the filming. Except, we can not confirm the presence of the man through clear photographic records; we cannot confirm that the man who claims to have filmed the assassination was even there from the film record. Yet we are expected to accept the "film record that he allegedly shot" as authentic despite inconsistencies found therein. This is weird logic, to be sure.

The film record does not definitively establish that Zapruder was the photographer that day. Why?

Zappy apologists would have us believe that it is because of the "lack of reliability" of the film stock, camera quality, skill of the photographers, distance from target (Zappy) etc., that obscures Zapruder's presence. We should therefore IGNORE the lack of evidence and instead we should embrace the official story: Zapruder was there. But, Mary Moorman took her polaroid within an acceptable proximity of the subject. In fact, Gary Mack claims that he located Badgeman in the Moorman polaroid! Tell me this, Gary: Why is it that even though Badgeman is obscured by foliage, by shadow, and is tiny behind the wall -- by comparison -- to the man claiming to be Zapruder who is standing on the pedestal, who is not hiding behind a wall, who's not in shadows, who's in BROAD DAYLIGHT, and he's elevated on top of a PERCH--yet, the detail in Badgeman's image is much higher than the detail in the alleged image of Zapruder! If we can discern Badgeman's detail, Gary, certainly we should be able to discern Zapruder's detail, right? C'mon, admit it... It's beyond obvious.

Yet, these same people fail to apply the same standard to the Zapruder film itself!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone actually took time to add that detail to the logo on the flag. O.K. !!!!

I guess detail was added to the stonework of the TSBD, in the upper right side of the photo, too.

Or, maybe the newspaper version is a copy from a better generation Altgen's, than what is available, regardless of what doctoring/airbrushing/ etc,etc was done to the original.

chris

This details the problem with using repro images to judge photo quality, too many unknowns to make a firm conclusion. In your example of the z frames in Life yes they do look different but why? Is the original film different? Where there differences in the quality of the dupe photos from the original frames? Were the sep films shot differently? Did the guys at the film stripping table get the the one page slighlty out of register? Where the forms on which each page was placed tun on a different press? On a different day? By a different pressman? Was a printing plate out of register? Did they make adjustments to the color fountains to compensate for an ad images that ran just above or below the z frames on the form? Did they use makeready pages in bindery, made while getting the press "up to color"?

I know you do prepress, were you around pre-digital? When sep films were made in a process camera and films cut and pasted, by color layer, by guys using razor blades and red litho tape? Lots of silly things happened in this workflow. Heck even today with current tech and the best presses and pressmen around its still a crapshoot when you have the same image span two pages and jump the gutter. Getting both halfs to match is nutty. I have piles of examples of the same image in a brochure looking different from one page to the next.

Craig,

Thank you for acknowledging there is a difference.

I agree with the variables you list in regards to the reproduction process.

But, there is a distinct quality difference in the Life pages.

All frames but 230 on pgs 40-41 are out of focus.

All frames on pg 42 are in focus, matching frame 230.

Past the Stemmon's sign and the quality frames appear.

In the case of the Altgen's newspaper photo, the detail is there. It's in the flag, the TSBD wall, the limo visors, etc, etc.

The limo is basically the closest object to Altgen's, the original or anything close should provide at least this same level of detail in a non-newspaper form.

I keep hearing a reference to Thompson's best print, but I'll bet the detail doesn't match the newspaper edition.

If it did, we would have seen it by now.

chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

I never did receive an answer to my question about the detail in the flag logo. Not from you nor anyone else.

Once again, I'm waiting for anyone to supply a non-newspaper copy of Altgen's 6, which possesses the same detail in the limo flag, which the San Francisco Chronicle printed on 11-23-63.

It's not a difficult request if other versions previously supplied are even close to the original.

chris

Maybe you had received an answer to your question, but didn't catch it. You can post your image again or link it because I am not interested in wasting lots of time with it. I do know that it was not uncommon for newspapers to airbrush photos so to sharpen them up where ever possible. I would have to see your images again, feel free to post a link to them or repost them again.

Bill

Bill,

The detail in the flag between the red arrows.

As I asked previously, if someone has a non-newspaper copy of Altgen's with this detail, I'm all ears.

It does not exist in any of the best copies that have been submitted so far.

chris

Altgens6.png

Chris:

If you watch my presentation in Minnesota (on you-tube) you will see that there were several versions of Altgen's 6.

Doug Weldon

Thanks Doug,

I will take a look at your presentation.

If you are in possession of several Altgen's 6 copies, can you state whether any of them hold the same detail as the one I have provided? That's non-newspaper versions of course.

chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently on this forum:

Robin Unger and Martin Hinrichs conclusively proved that the limo did not make a wide turn via their study of the lane markings in the Towner film.

Maybe Martin, and/or Robin could once again post their findings.

Hi Duncan

Is this the thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16847&st=40

Someone can check with Gary Mack, but I seem to recall him saying to me once that the limo could be seen in part during that turn and it stayed to the middle lane. I believe that we were discussing Truly's statement about the turn. Gary would be the best person to ask for it was a long time ago and I may not be remembering it correctly.

Bill

Dorman frame showing part of the Limo and follow up car during the turn.

D-229.jpg

Dorman frame showing the distance from the south side curb to the motorcycles.

D-265.jpg

Chris / Martin

It would be interesting exersise to try to overlay the Dorman frame showing the Limo & follow up car onto a scaled overhead of the Dealey plaza corner.

Note the motorcycle is siiting next to the white road stripe !

Robin,

I don't believe we have a true overhead of this corner to work with.

Do you have something particular in mind?

chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

greg i do not know what happened i replied to yours on the previous page but it ended up at the bottom of this page so i have copied and pasted yours...best b

Quote greg burham post # 105;''The alleged Sitzman photo(s) and/or frame(s) are inconclusive, IMO. However, even assuming that they are pictures of her--still--she is NOT the person who FILMED THE ASSASSINATION. Abraham Zapruder allegedly did the filming. Except, we can not confirm the presence of the man through clear photographic records; we cannot confirm that the man who claims to have filmed the assassination was even there from the film record. Yet we are expected to accept the "film record that he allegedly shot" as authentic despite inconsistencies found therein. This is weird logic, to be sure.

The film record does not definitively establish that Zapruder was the photographer that day. Why?

Zappy apologists would have us believe that it is because of the "lack of reliability" of the film stock, camera quality, skill of the photographers, distance from target (Zappy) etc., that obscures Zapruder's presence. We should therefore IGNORE the lack of evidence and instead we should embrace the official story: Zapruder was there. But, Mary Moorman took her polaroid within an acceptable proximity of the subject. In fact, Gary Mack claims that he located Badgeman in the Moorman polaroid! Tell me this, Gary: Why is it that even though Badgeman is obscured by foliage, by shadow, and is tiny behind the wall -- by comparison -- to the man claiming to be Zapruder who is standing on the pedestal, who is not hiding behind a wall, who's not in shadows, who's in BROAD DAYLIGHT, and he's elevated on top of a PERCH--yet, the detail in Badgeman's image is much higher than the detail in the alleged image of Zapruder! If we can discern Badgeman's detail, Gary, certainly we should be able to discern Zapruder's detail, right? C'mon, admit it... It's beyond obvious.

Yet, these same people fail to apply the same standard to the Zapruder film itself!

GO_SECURE

monk

-----------------

A WISE MAN CAN ACT THE FOOL...BUT A FOOL CAN'T ACT THE WISE MAN

hi greg; some mighty good comments. no we cannot see facial features of either abraham nor marilyn, but as you state all are expected to believe it is them because imo he took the film of the assassination so says the w/c and government, if not his family owes back 16 million plus interest, and that is never going to happen not now, so all the go alongs with the gov and w/c and such keep on, carrying on that Zapruder did take the film and Marilyn held onto him, yet there is no proof of such, and i did think in this research land one needed proof,:unsure:well that is what above Dean has been told about his research imo, and why can't Gary show abraham and marilyns facial features clearly when he was able with Jack to find and clearly show his research find..:blink:the BDM bet you do not get a satisfactory answer from gary...:blink: .?? b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
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...