Jump to content

Questioning the veracity of fellow members


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

Gary Mack may be signed up on this forum but he is not a member because he has never made a post

Its like getting married and not consummating it

He is to scared to post and have to defend himself in a public forum

When was the last time Reymond made a post...or even visited?

oh geez, you whining again? Simply put, Zapruder film authenticity has been challenged. Prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder currently stored at NARA is what you profess--the original 8mm in-camera film shot in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63! No opinion laddie, PROVE it!

Just curious...exactly what will satisfy you as "proof"?

change the subject, eh? :down

A collection of professional, credentialed (film-image) composing experts (industry verified) versed in and/or experienced in 1964 optical film printing equipment and image composing TECHNIQUES whom collectively shall put the alleged, currently housed, NARA, in-camera original Zapruder film through forensic testing... Roland Zavada-KODAK would surely have a seat at the table.

Anything short of that reflects simple opinion, both yours, mine and Zavada's when it comes to image composing)... Frankly, I can handle a determination by such a group that the Z-film was found to be *an in-camera original*. Ya see, even that determination does not change what has been determined through an already government investigation of the assassination: conspiracy. And that makes for a long day, years in-fact defending the WCR, doesn't it?

So in other words OPINION is just FINE with you for proof. So I guess you have no problems then with Rollie opinion that the film is indeed an in camera original, along wiht the opinion of Dr. Rod Ryan, who says the same thing.

So you see Dave, its not a change of subject at all, in fact is right on target.

Next.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack may be signed up on this forum but he is not a member because he has never made a post

Its like getting married and not consummating it

He is to scared to post and have to defend himself in a public forum

When was the last time Reymond made a post...or even visited?

oh geez, you whining again? Simply put, Zapruder film authenticity has been challenged. Prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder currently stored at NARA is what you profess--the original 8mm in-camera film shot in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63! No opinion laddie, PROVE it!

Just curious...exactly what will satisfy you as "proof"?

change the subject, eh? :down

A collection of professional, credentialed (film-image) composing experts (industry verified) versed in and/or experienced in 1964 optical film printing equipment and image composing TECHNIQUES whom collectively shall put the alleged, currently housed, NARA, in-camera original Zapruder film through forensic testing... Roland Zavada-KODAK would surely have a seat at the table.

Anything short of that reflects simple opinion, both yours, mine and Zavada's when it comes to image composing)... Frankly, I can handle a determination by such a group that the Z-film was found to be *an in-camera original*. Ya see, even that determination does not change what has been determined through an already government investigation of the assassination: conspiracy. And that makes for a long day, years in-fact defending the WCR, doesn't it?

Let's see there's:

Zavada who invented the filmstock in question and prformed numerous forensic tests on the original,

Ray Feilding who you repeatedly cited as a leading expert on the special effects capabilies of the era,

Oliver Stone who studied at NYU (one of the world's top film schools) in the late 60's early 70's and obviously was quite familiar with the Z-film

Mark Sobel - who directed a film about the Warren Commission AND

Robert Groden who worked in Moe Weitzman photocompositiong lab, had access to Weitzman high quality copies and the original when he worked with the HSCA.

That's not exactly what you asked for but is pretty damn close.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack may be signed up on this forum but he is not a member because he has never made a post

Its like getting married and not consummating it

He is to scared to post and have to defend himself in a public forum

When was the last time Reymond made a post...or even visited?

oh geez, you whining again? Simply put, Zapruder film authenticity has been challenged. Prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder currently stored at NARA is what you profess--the original 8mm in-camera film shot in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63! No opinion laddie, PROVE it!

Just curious...exactly what will satisfy you as "proof"?

Buy "Bloody Treason" then read "TGZFH"

You will be a changed man Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buy "Bloody Treason" then read "TGZFH"

You will be a changed man Craig

Yawn..next you are going to tell me Ryan says the film is fake, based crappy b/w prints.

Sorry to burst your worldview Dean, the heros of BT and TGZFH both say ...the the film is real.

learn a bit about photography Dean, you will be a changed man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see there's:

Zavada who invented the filmstock in question and prformed numerous forensic tests on the original,

Ray Feilding who you repeatedly cited as a leading expert on the special effects capabilies of the era,

Oliver Stone who studied at NYU (one of the world's top film schools) in the late 60's early 70's and obviously was quite familiar with the Z-film

Mark Sobel - who directed a film about the Warren Commission AND

Robert Groden who worked in Moe Weitzman photocompositiong lab, had access to Weitzman high quality copies and the original when he worked with the HSCA.

That's not exactly what you asked for but is pretty damn close.

Don't forget that darling of the alteration crowd, Rod Ryan, who saw the original film and said he would not question it being authentic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicken Little was a hen, not a boy.

Actually, Chicken Little told Henny Penny the sky was falling. Henny Penny was the hen.

That's just hearsay, and in any case, it in no way has any bearing on the previous contention that Chicken Little was a "hen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Documentation that Chicken Little (SHE) was a hen:

(Henny Penny was also a hen. Foxey Loxey ambushed them both in Dealey Plaza):

.............

The Story of Chicken Little

Chicken Little likes to walk in the woods. She likes to look at the trees. She likes to smell the flowers. She likes to listen to the birds singing.

One day while she is walking an acorn falls from a tree, and hits the top of her little head.

- My, oh, my, the sky is falling. I must run and tell the lion about it, - says Chicken Little and begins to run.

She runs and runs. By and by she meets the hen.

- Where are you going? - asks the hen.

- Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling and I am going to the lion to tell him about it.

- How do you know it? - asks Henny Penny.

- It hit me on the head, so I know it must be so, - says Chicken Little.

- Let me go with you! - says Henny Penny. - Run, run.

So the two run and run until they meet Ducky Lucky.

- The sky is falling, - says Henny Penny. - We are going to the lion to tell him about it.

- How do you know that? - asks Ducky Lucky.

- It hit Chicken Little on the head, - says Henny Penny.

- May I come with you? - asks Ducky Lucky.

- Come, - says Henny Penny.

So all three of them run on and on until they meet Foxey Loxey.

- Where are you going? - asks Foxey Loxey.

- The sky is falling and we are going to the lion to tell him about it, - says Ducky Lucky.

- Do you know where he lives? - asks the fox.

- I don't, - says Chicken Little.

- I don't, - says Henny Penny.

- I don't, - says Ducky Lucky.

- I do, - says Foxey Loxey. - Come with me and I can show you the way.

He walks on and on until he comes to his den.

- Come right in, - says Foxey Loxey.

They all go in, but they never, never come out again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the fox got a cut or if the lion ate him/her too, and all this because of a nut.

What is the world coming to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see there's:

Zavada who invented the filmstock in question and prformed numerous forensic tests on the original,

Ray Feilding who you repeatedly cited as a leading expert on the special effects capabilies of the era,

Oliver Stone who studied at NYU (one of the world's top film schools) in the late 60's early 70's and obviously was quite familiar with the Z-film

Mark Sobel - who directed a film about the Warren Commission AND

Robert Groden who worked in Moe Weitzman photocompositiong lab, had access to Weitzman high quality copies and the original when he worked with the HSCA.

That's not exactly what you asked for but is pretty damn close.

Don't forget that darling of the alteration crowd, Rod Ryan, who saw the original film and said he would not question it being authentic...

IIRC he at first said he thought it might have been altered then when he studied the film and alteration claims more closely said the latter would have been impossible in 1963-4. If so one more qualified member for Healy's panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAN I PLEASE REMIND EVERYONE THAT GARY MACK IS A MEMBER OF THIS FORUM IN GOOD STANDING, AND CALLING HIM A xxxx IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE ABIDE BY ALL FORUM RULES WHEN DISCUSSING GARY.

THANK YOU.

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...