If the Zapruder film was altered, then the following must apply.

[Bill Miller]

simple, then deliver Zapruder's copy for forensic film testing...

better yet, PROVE to us that film is a 1st generation copy -- and to this day that is a fact that non-alteration whiners cannot get around. tsk-tsk

Oh, and how long did Zapruder keep a copy of the film? Gary, your boy is doing it again.....

David .... let me see if I get this right! You (Healy) are always claiming that you have film experience that so many do not, thus you'd know if the film was altered or not by examining it. You have complained for well over a decade that the film needs someone else to examine it other than Zavada or Groden, presumably because in your view they aren't qualified to make such a determination. So several years ago I asked what you have done to make such a request to the NARA to have the film examined and to date you have not offered so much as a scribbled out note that you've written to even start the process. Instead, you merely sit with your thumb in one of your orifices and declare that someone should deliver the Zapruder original to you for forensic film testing ... do you not know how lame that sounds???

I also recall asking you years ago to tell us just what forensic testing would you require to be done to the Zapruder film so to authenticate it as the original film and you have never done that either. It's almost like you don't want to do anything more than to complain. Show the world how serious you are and address these issues that you wish to be taken seriously about.

As always, I look forward to what ever information you may have to offer ... any information ... even one piece of information to show that you are serious about the things you say.

Bill

[Paul Rigby]

Show the world how serious you are and address these issues that you wish to be taken seriously about.

Quite so, Bill.

So how about furnishing us all with the source of that curious claim to the effect that Dan Rather saw the Hughes film before going on air with CBS and describing the Z-fake?

To my absolute astonishment - I believe that is the phrase I was groping for - I can find nothing whatever to support such a claim. You didn't just pluck it out of the ether, did you? I would be most disappointed to discover this was indeed the case.

But not surprised.

And a merry New Year to all anti-alterationists, too! Remember, there's always time to change landmarks - after all, the CIA did.

[Bill Miller]

So how about furnishing us all with the source of that curious claim to the effect that Dan Rather saw the Hughes film before going on air with CBS and describing the Z-fake?

To my absolute astonishment - I believe that is the phrase I was groping for - I can find nothing whatever to support such a claim. You didn't just pluck it out of the ether, did you? I would be most disappointed to discover this was indeed the case.

I proposed the idea that Rather having said he saw 'FILMS' - that he may have seen the Hughes film ... after all, how many other films showed the car turning onto Elm Street. No shots were reported fired until after the limo was gliding down Elm Street, and the Towner film shows a pretty uneventful turn onto Elm Street, so supposed you offer a logical reason why anyone would need to remove the limo turn onto Elm Street from the Zapruder film. It certainly cannot be to keep from ID'ing anyone for the films resolution isn't that sharp, so let us hear your working theory ... you certainly must have one before proclaiming an alteration took place, so share it with us.

Let me ask you something .... what did you think of Zavada's presentation last Fall in Dallas concerning the impossibility that the Zapruder film was altered? I'm thinking you didn't see it?? Also, what have you done to seek out an expert who would examine the Zapruder film at the NARA and could you furnish this forum with your written request to the NARA to have it done?

The reason why these questions are important is because I have heard the same complaints from people like yourself and Healy who haven't educated yourselves as to why Zavada is wrong about the Zapruder film not being altered, nor have you offered the name of anyone even close to the man's expertise who is willing to do the same. It seems to me that if you were serious about all this, then you would put in motion some sort of effort to get the job done ... yet you have not. Is it because you do not know how to find the address of the NARA? Can you explain yourself?

Bill Miller

Edited January 2, 2011 by Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

I proposed the idea that Rather having said he saw 'FILMS' - that he may have seen the Hughes film...

As I suspected, you simply plucked the notion from the air because it was a) convenient; and seemed vaguely plausible. Terrific.

...after all, how many other films showed the car turning onto Elm Street.

The first version of the Z-film did, Bill, that's the one Rather described in such detail; the Dulles Report acknowledged; WNEW-TV showed in the early hours of November 26; and so and so forth. We don't need to posit - without proof - Rather's viewing of any other film.

No shots were reported fired until after the limo was gliding down Elm Street...

Absolutely true: I commend your perspicacity. But that's not the point.

The original fake was withdrawn not because it showed shots at that point in the motorcade's progress, but precisely because it didn't; and the CIA wanted, if only for a brief period and in print, to pretend there had been shots at that time. How else was the Agency to sustain the fiction of shots from the rear by a lone rifleman when the Parkland doctors had emphatically insisted upon shots from the front?

The broader point is this: The cover-up was a process and not an event, a process in which the Agency modified and adapted its plans to developments.

Let me ask you something ....

Certainly, I'm all ears, as my barber never tires of telling me...

what did you think of Zavada's presentation last Fall in Dallas concerning the impossibility that the Zapruder film was altered? I'm thinking you didn't see it??

You think right. Unless and until we know the full extent of the CIA's work in this area, the testimony of even the best intentioned expert in the world isn't going to tell us very much - save, perhaps, that the CIA is very clever, and most of us knew that anyway.

Paul

[Bill Miller]

As I suspected, you simply plucked the notion from the air because it was a) convenient; and seemed vaguely plausible. Terrific.

It was a logical proposal based on the evidence to date.

The first version of the Z-film did, Bill, that's the one Rather described in such detail; the Dulles Report acknowledged; WNEW-TV showed in the early hours of November 26; and so and so forth. We don't need to posit - without proof - Rather's viewing of any other film.

Please explain in detail.

The original fake was withdrawn not because it showed shots at that point in the motorcade's progress, but precisely because it didn't; and the CIA wanted, if only for a brief period and in print, to pretend there had been shots at that time. How else was the Agency to sustain the fiction of shots from the rear by a lone rifleman when the Parkland doctors had emphatically insisted upon shots from the front?

So the CIA wanted to show that the shots had been fired at that time despite the 100s of witnesses who would claim differently? I guess that Tina Towner is lucky to be alive seeing how her film shows differently. Forgive me, but your response seems to be created from delusion and is not supported by the two major points I just mentioned.

'Bill Miller' : what did you think of Zavada's presentation last Fall in Dallas concerning the impossibility that the Zapruder film was altered? I'm thinking you didn't see it??"

You think right. Unless and until we know the full extent of the CIA's work in this area, the testimony of even the best intentioned expert in the world isn't going to tell us very much - save, perhaps, that the CIA is very clever, and most of us knew that anyway.

Paul

So your claim of alteration relies on the CIA telling you all you want to hear about their work in this area despite the best experts in the world who have examined the said film and found it to be the in-camera original. So if the CIA says they didn't alter the Zapruder film - then what ...... for someone like yourself won't believe anything that doesn't fit your speculative paranoid delusions.

That you rely on the made up notion that the clever CIA removed the limo turn from the Zapruder film so they could convince the world that JFK was shot in the intersection of Houston and Elm despite the hundreds of witnesses including the first lady saying otherwise, which still wouldn't explain how a lone gunman from the 6th floor eastmost window could have shot the President just under his adams apple by merely aiming downward towards the intersection, not to mention Tina Towner filming the uneventful turn.

I find your theory very illogical and certainly something that the very clever CIA wouldn't do.

Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

It was the Muchmore film that was shown on WNEW-TV on the 26th November, not the Zapruder film.

Nope, it wasn't. For those interested in the contrary case, try here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12216&view=findpost&p=176434&hl=wnew-tv&fromsearch=1

[Paul Rigby]

Fact: All films and photographs listed below are interlinked with the Zapruder film.

If the Zapruder film was altered, and Zapruder was not on the pedestal filming with Sitzman, then the following must apply.

The Zapruder film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

Zapruder was part of the conspiracy.

Sitzman was part of the conspiracy.

Beatrice Hester was part of the conspiracy.

Particularly unfair on Mrs Hester, who offered a perfectly comprehensible account of her position during, and movements immediately after, the shooting:

Mrs CHARLES HESTER, 2619 Keyhold Street, Irving, Texas, advised that sometime around 12:30 p.m., on November 22, 1963, she and her husband were standing along the street at a place immediately preceding the underpass on Elm Street, where President Kennedy was shot. Mrs HESTER advised she heard two loud noises which sounded like gunshots, and she saw President KENNEDY slump in the seat of the car he was riding in. Her husband grabbed then grabbed her and shoved her to the ground. Shortly thereafter they went across to the north side of the street on an embankment in an attempt to gain shelter. She stated that she believes she and her husband actually had been in the direct line of fire. She did not see anyone with a gun when the shots were fired and stated she could not furnish any information as to exactly where the shots came from. After the President’s car had pulled away from the scene, she and her husband proceeded to their car and left the area as she was very upset,” 24H523

A far from unique case of an eyewitness whose testimony is completely at odds with the Z-fakes.

It's all completely bonkers.

Yes, Duncan, anti-alterationism is. But I'm told the pay is better, so there is an upside.

[David G. Healy]

...

So your claim of alteration relies on the CIA telling you all you want to hear about their work in this area despite the best experts in the world who have examined the said film and found it to be the in-camera original.

...

Bill Miller

why are you endlessly putting words in others mouth? That's really a bad habit of yours and one habit that renders your film-photo-pic "opinions" as senseless to those that have experience in the area -- no credibility chum!...

And praytell, who might your rated experts (sic) be names please, AND when they examined the alleged in-camera Zapruder Film? Certainly not Roland Zavada who ducked out of the 2003 Univ.of Minn., Zaprduer Film Symposium... Roland missed a great opportunity to present his case, to set Z-film alteration types straight, but alas, he knew what questions he'd face, and with the knowledge the symposium was not a SMPTE convention type of crowd, in short Roland knew those there would not be eating out of his hand...

Edited January 3, 2011 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

name='David G. Healy' date='03 January 2011 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1294016546' post='216495']

why are you endlessly putting words in others mouth? That's really a bad habit of yours and one habit that renders your film-photo-pic "opinions" as senseless to those that have experience in the area -- no credibility chum!...

Hey David ... you're awake ... did someone yell 'last call!'? Please post a little detail .... if possible.

And praytell, who might your rated experts (sic) be names please, AND when they examined the alleged in-camera Zapruder Film? Certainly not Roland Zavada who ducked out of the 2003 Univ.of Minn., Zaprduer Film Symposium... Roland missed a great opportunity to present his case, to set Z-film alteration types straight, but alas, he knew what questions he'd face, and with the knowledge the symposium was not a SMPTE convention type of crowd, in short Roland knew those there would not be eating out of his hand...

As Kathy posted ... more to things than you know, David. Now if I have done my math right .... 2003 was seven years ago. How many request have you filed with the NARA to have an expert of your choice examine the Zapruder film? Still having trouble trying to put something together?? Try starting by giving them your name and this link http://rossleysignorance.wetpaint.com/page/DAVID+GORDON+HEALY?t=anon and tell them to send you the camera original Zapruder film so you can look at it.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Roland Zavada was at the Lancer Conference this last year.

Kathy

I was told that Zavada's presentation last Fall made it clear that the Zapruder film had not been altered. That would certainly explain why guys like David can't go toe to toe with the guy, nor has he provided an expert that disagrees with Zavada. It also explains why David has yet to produce even a scribbled rough draft of a request to the NARA to have the film examined. Sure doesn't sound like a guy who's sincere about the complaints he makes. How does that saying go again ... 'Actions speak louder than words' ... yes, I think that's it.

Bill

[Paul Rigby]

'Actions speak louder than words' ...

As they tend to when you strangle the English language.

[Chris Davidson]

So how about furnishing us all with the source of that curious claim to the effect that Dan Rather saw the Hughes film before going on air with CBS and describing the Z-fake?

To my absolute astonishment - I believe that is the phrase I was groping for - I can find nothing whatever to support such a claim. You didn't just pluck it out of the ether, did you? I would be most disappointed to discover this was indeed the case.

I proposed the idea that Rather having said he saw 'FILMS' - that he may have seen the Hughes film ... after all, how many other films showed the car turning onto Elm Street. No shots were reported fired until after the limo was gliding down Elm Street, and the Towner film shows a pretty uneventful turn onto Elm Street, so supposed you offer a logical reason why anyone would need to remove the limo turn onto Elm Street from the Zapruder film. It certainly cannot be to keep from ID'ing anyone for the films resolution isn't that sharp, so let us hear your working theory ... you certainly must have one before proclaiming an alteration took place, so share it with us.

Let me ask you something .... what did you think of Zavada's presentation last Fall in Dallas concerning the impossibility that the Zapruder film was altered? I'm thinking you didn't see it?? Also, what have you done to seek out an expert who would examine the Zapruder film at the NARA and could you furnish this forum with your written request to the NARA to have it done?

The reason why these questions are important is because I have heard the same complaints from people like yourself and Healy who haven't educated yourselves as to why Zavada is wrong about the Zapruder film not being altered, nor have you offered the name of anyone even close to the man's expertise who is willing to do the same. It seems to me that if you were serious about all this, then you would put in motion some sort of effort to get the job done ... yet you have not. Is it because you do not know how to find the address of the NARA? Can you explain yourself?

Bill Miller

Bill,

The Towner splice and Zfilm Elm St. turn have nothing to do with people identification.

They have everything to do with math.

A new topic I will soon start.

chris

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

The Towner splice and Zfilm Elm St. turn have nothing to do with people identification.

They have everything to do with math.

A new topic I will soon start.

chris

Tina Towner's film being mentioned was about showing an uneventful turn onto Elm Street which doesn't support a theory that the CIA removed that turn from the Zapruder film so they could say that the shooting started during that sequence. We are told that the CIA is clever on one hand, but we are to also believe that they wouldn't think about the other pictures and films taken or the 500 witnesses who would dispute such a claim, thus exposing the lie.

I also added that the people in and around that intersection are not identifiable in the Zapruder film because of the distance from the camera they are and the capabilities of Zapruder's camera itself. The alteration supporters have yet to demonstrate one logical theory as to why anyone would have wanted to remove the limo turn from Zapruder's film.

Dan Rather's remarks were more than likely his supposition for my understanding is that Rather knew Dallas and was familiar with the route, thus mentioning the car turning onto Elm Street was a given and not necessarily what he saw on the showing of the Zapruder film. One way to have settled that matter would have been to contact Rather and ask him to be specific, but to date I have not seen where anyone has done this .... just as there has never been so much as a scribbled note to the NARA by an alteration supporter to have an expert of choice examine the said camera original film stored there. Certainly I am not the only person who has picked up on this and asked himself 'Why the lack of effort on the alteration supporters part if they truly are sincere in their belief that the Zapruder film was altered?' This is one time that I believe that having to ask that question at this late date also answers it!

Bill

Edited January 3, 2011 by Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

Dan Rather's remarks were more than likely his supposition for my understanding is that Rather knew Dallas and was familiar with the route, thus mentioning the car turning onto Elm Street was a given and not necessarily what he saw on the showing of the Zapruder film.

Supposition - the first refuge of the anti-alterationist:

"Dan brought a 16 mm print of the film to our newsroom a few days after the assassination, and he and I took it into the projection room. Dan had to view it and feed a report about it to Walter Cronkite’s evening news. I ran the soundless film over and over again for the better part of an hour while Dan took notes,"

Bob Huffaker, Bill Mercer, George Phenix, Wes Wise. When the News Went Live: Dallas 1963 (Lanham, Maryland: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2004), pp.67-8

God knows how true any of this is. Huffaker was, it should be noted, not above modifying the record in the light of the received version.

Rather reportedly stated (to Hughes Rudd and Richard Hotelett) on CBS radio earlier on 25 November 1963: "“Well let me tell you then, give you a word picture of the motion picture that we have just seen."*

Balance of probability? Rather had indeed just watched the first version of the Z-fake before he went on air for the first time on 25 November 1963.

Paul

*Richard Trask, National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr Zapruder’s home movie and murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 2005), pp.138-142.

[Bill Miller]

Supposition - the first refuge of the anti-alterationist:

Can we also supposed that you have not bothered to contact Rather to settle the matter? Can we also supposed that you, along with the rest of the alteration supporters haven't done squat to in the past decade to get permission from the NARA to have an expert of your choice examine the said original Zapruder film?? And can we supposed that none of you alteration claimants have put together a critique of Zavada's presentation of two months ago???

I await to take refuge in your response!

Bill

Edited January 3, 2011 by Bill Miller