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

[Paul Rigby]

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

If you need change for the phone call to Dan, let me know. I'll chip in, and promise not to laugh. I might even do some translation, from Millerese into something approximating standard English.

Zavada, I'm afraid, is of no interest or consequence - unless, that is, he can prove the film's chain of possession. Which, of course, he can't.

Paul

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Zavada, I'm afraid, is of no interest or consequence - unless, that is, he can prove the film's chain of possession. Which, of course, he can't.

Paul

Au Contraire, Monsieur!

It is Mr. Rigby who needs to prove where the film went if he wants to support his silly theory. But of course he CANNOT PROVE HIS CLAIMS!

[Paul Rigby]

Zavada, I'm afraid, is of no interest or consequence - unless, that is, he can prove the film's chain of possession. Which, of course, he can't.

Paul

Au Contraire, Monsieur!

It is Mr. Rigby who needs to prove where the film went if he wants to support his silly theory. But of course he CANNOT PROVE HIS CLAIMS!

No, quite untrue, Jay, and you know it - otherwise you wouldn't be SHOUTING IN CAPITAL LETTERS, would you?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

No, quite untrue, Jay, and you know it - otherwise you wouldn't be SHOUTING IN CAPITAL LETTERS, would you?

OK Paul. I will say it in SMALL LETTERS.

Either way, you cannot prove your silly theory, can you?

[David G. Healy]

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

If you need change for the phone call to Dan, let me know. I'll chip in, and promise not to laugh. I might even do some translation, from Millerese into something approximating standard English.

Zavada, I'm afraid, is of no interest or consequence - unless, that is, he can prove the film's chain of possession. Which, of course, he can't.

Paul

oh---- O-U-C-H

Edited January 4, 2011 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

Roland Zavada was at the Lancer Conference this last year. He told me that he was asked to the Duluth Symposium as a keynote speaker, and then found out later that he was only going to be given a few minutes for his opinion. After he found that out, he decided not to attend.

Kathy

let's just say hon, I heard it another way.... another way, making much more sense than that drivel.....

[Bill Miller]

If you need change for the phone call to Dan, let me know. I'll chip in, and promise not to laugh. I might even do some translation, from Millerese into something approximating standard English.

Zavada, I'm afraid, is of no interest or consequence - unless, that is, he can prove the film's chain of possession. Which, of course, he can't.

Paul

So do I understand you to say that you can make allegations and its up to someone else to prove them wrong? And that an expert cannot look at a Kodachrome II movie film and tell whether or not it is the original film or a copy .... is that your belief?

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

name='Paul Rigby' date='03 January 2011 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1294096288' post='216570']

If you need change for the phone call to Dan, let me know. I'll chip in, and promise not to laugh. I might even do some translation, from Millerese into something approximating standard English.

Zavada, I'm afraid, is of no interest or consequence - unless, that is, he can prove the film's chain of possession. Which, of course, he can't.

Paul

oh---- O-U-C-H

David,

You have been going on for years saying that the NARA needs to turn the film over to (you, I supposed) so it can be examined so this matter can be put to rest. Paul on the other hand is saying something different than you do ... Paul says it doesn't matter if the film is the original or not if one cannot show a chain of possession. I am sure from your past postings defending the need to examine the said camera original that you see as I do that Paul is making up irrelevant excuses that he feels will cover his lack of interest in doing any research or investigations that would either confirm or deny his allegations. I know, like you must know, that the assassination only happened once on 11/22/63 and even if Zapruder had left his camera on the pedestal and an unknown drunken bum had picked it up and turned it in to the cops that the film can still be examined to know if its the camera original or not.

And for Paul ... the above comes to light when you fly by the seat of your pants and just make excuses for your lack of action. So again - why the lack of action on you peoples part? You spend years posting day after day the same complaints when you could use a small fraction of that time doing something about getting the answers that you claim to seek ... why is that?? Could it be that you aren't really interested in finding out that you were wrong .... that possibly you'd have to find something else to do with your time??? This isn't about whether the film is legit or not ... its about you people doing absolutely nothing to find out the truth that you claim to seek. Even a letter to the NARA would show that you were serious enough to at least of done something, but you have nothing but excuses to offer .... what a shock!!!

I look forward to another response that I can take refuge with.

Bill Miller

[J. Raymond Carroll]

This isn't about whether the film is legit or not ... its about you people doing absolutely nothing to find out the truth that you claim to seek. Even a letter to the NARA would show that you were serious enough to at least of done something, but you have nothing but excuses to offer

Bill Miller

What say those who claim they have evidence that the ZFilm was altered?

[David G. Healy]

name='Paul Rigby' date='03 January 2011 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1294096288' post='216570']

If you need change for the phone call to Dan, let me know. I'll chip in, and promise not to laugh. I might even do some translation, from Millerese into something approximating standard English.

Zavada, I'm afraid, is of no interest or consequence - unless, that is, he can prove the film's chain of possession. Which, of course, he can't.

Paul

oh---- O-U-C-H

David,

You have been going on for years saying that the NARA needs to turn the film over to (you, I supposed) so it can be examined so this matter can be put to rest. Paul on the other hand is saying something different than you do ... Paul says it doesn't matter if the film is the original or not if one cannot show a chain of possession. I am sure from your past postings defending the need to examine the said camera original that you see as I do that Paul is making up irrelevant excuses that he feels will cover his lack of interest in doing any research or investigations that would either confirm or deny his allegations. I know, like you must know, that the assassination only happened once on 11/22/63 and even if Zapruder had left his camera on the pedestal and an unknown drunken bum had picked it up and turned it in to the cops that the film can still be examined to know if its the camera original or not.

And for Paul ... the above comes to light when you fly by the seat of your pants and just make excuses for your lack of action. So again - why the lack of action on you peoples part? You spend years posting day after day the same complaints when you could use a small fraction of that time doing something about getting the answers that you claim to seek ... why is that?? Could it be that you aren't really interested in finding out that you were wrong .... that possibly you'd have to find something else to do with your time??? This isn't about whether the film is legit or not ... its about you people doing absolutely nothing to find out the truth that you claim to seek. Even a letter to the NARA would show that you were serious enough to at least of done something, but you have nothing but excuses to offer .... what a shock!!!

I look forward to another response that I can take refuge with.

Bill Miller

as EVER, what YOU suppose, is simply irrelevant there Bill.... Off the top, and in my humble estimation, researcher Paul Rigby has no peer on this or any other internet JFK assassination related board and/or forum, PERIOD!

The case evidence lynch pin concerning the murder of JFK relied on the in-camera Zapruder film. It is imperative that the 6th Floor Museum demand forensic testing of same, NOW. Or, forever hold your peace! You, have no legitimacy concerning this subject matter...

Now half the word merchants around here can tell you, in a court of law if you can't provide chain of evidence documentation regarding a piece of case evidence, it doesn't exist, PERIOD. The rest is spin! Regarding Rollie's report, comments and dancing while defending same, its waste of time -- therefore irrelvant.

To quote one quite familiar with the Zapruder film, years ago: "the Zapruder film will never, EVER end up in a court of law..." What amazes me here is simple, Bill: although quite a few alleged, CTer's on this board, whom wholeheartedly agree that a conspiracy killed JFK, some of those same CTers are also terrified Dealey Plaza history (as we know it, according to the WCR) was botched! Kinda strange, eh?

Now this is the problem CTer's have regarding the Zapruder Film, it's controlled by the 6th Floor, simple as that, if YOU doubt that read the conditions the 6th Floor has to adhere to regarding the film. And please, don't be shy, tell us what is in the agreement! Perhaps Ray here can run a little *legal-beagle* interference for ya, eh?

So here's my final words on Zapruder film alteration: the legitimacy of the film is challenged, seriously challenged! Its up to YOU, the 6th floor museum, and any other preserver of Dealey Plaza History to make that challenge right! PROVE to us the in-camera Zapruder film currently housed at NARA is indeed the original allegedly shot by Abraham Zapruder. Now, you've got absolutely NO incentive to do that, as these recent, less than stellar posting of yours indicate... so to me (and others) its a moot subject (and has been for a few years now - unless you need to score some newbies new to the case debate points -- knock yourself out), you're a waste of time Bill, nearly 10 years and you still sound the same. Uninformed!

edit: In closing, regarding Paul Rigby and research? You Bill, have a long, LONG way to go in order to catch Paul Rigby, not to mention match his research abilities... toodle-loo chum!

Edited January 4, 2011 by David G. Healy
edited to remove vulgar phrase

[Bill Miller]

name='David G. Healy' date='04 January 2011 - 06:33 AM' timestamp='1294119216' post='216592']

as EVER, what YOU suppose, is simply irrelevant there Bill.... Off the top, and in my humble estimation, researcher Paul Rigby has no peer on this or any other internet JFK assassination related board and/or forum, PERIOD!

Au contraire, David. Paul has peers like yourself who complains, but never does anything about advancing those complaints to a meaningful end.

The case evidence lynch pin concerning the murder of JFK relied on the in-camera Zapruder film. It is imperative that the 6th Floor Museum demand forensic testing of same, NOW. Or, forever hold your peace! You, have no legitimacy concerning this subject matter...

The 6th Floor Museum is a preserver of history. thus it is not their concern to pamper your paranoid delusions. Who was it in your life that taught you that it's up to everyone else to seek out the answers for you ... who ever it was did you a dis-service. There has already been an examination of the said film by the world's leading expert and inventor of Kodachrome II film and it was said to be the in-camera original. Then someone like yourself comes along and says that you don't trust those findings and feel that the film should be examined by someone else. Is it not your responsibility to seek out such a person that you are satisfied with to examine the film and then make a request to the NARA to have it done. Of course it is!!!

And to keep the record straight because you once again misstate the facts, the 6th Floor Museum has only the oversight of how the film is used in the media. In other words, they handle the request of those who wish to use a copy of the film or parts thereof for public and media use of various kinds. It is the NARA that you must contact to request to have an expert examine the film. For you to continue to think otherwise tells me that you haven't even made a request to the 6th Floor Museum to find out differently.

Now half the word merchants around here can tell you, in a court of law if you can't provide chain of evidence documentation regarding a piece of case evidence, it doesn't exist, PERIOD. The rest is spin! Regarding Rollie's report, comments and dancing while defending same, its waste of time -- therefore irrelvant.

Please cite the legal statute that you are using to make such a statement. Items that have been stolen like a painting for instance, only to have been recovered without knowing who had taken it or its chain of handling, can and has still be legally verified as the original. The same can be said of coins and many other artifacts. You certainly must be aware of this for you, yourself, had recently stated that the film should be made available for forensic testing. Your statement above only contradicts your statements made only days ago.

As far as Zavada's report, cite an expert who has reviewed Zavada's report that has rebutted it?

To quote one quite familiar with the Zapruder film, years ago: "the Zapruder film will never, EVER end up in a court of law...

I guess the Shaw Trial wasn't held in a court of law. (sigh)

Now this is the problem CTer's have regarding the Zapruder Film, it's controlled by the 6th Floor, simple as that, if YOU doubt that read the conditions the 6th Floor has to adhere to regarding the film. And please, don't be shy, tell us what is in the agreement! Perhaps Ray here can run a little *legal-beagle* interference for ya, eh?

Let us cut to the chase - show us your request to the 6th Floor Museum asking to have the camera original Zapruder film examined by an expert. The fact is you have not done it or else you would have been told that it is the NARA that you must address this issue to. I learned this many years ago and have shared that information with you many times on the forums and yet you have done nothing to verify this information or to deny so to advance your position. Your continually misstating the facts will not get the job done.

So here's my final words on Zapruder film alteration: the legitimacy of the film is challenged, seriously challenged! Its up to YOU, the 6th floor museum, and any other preserver of Dealey Plaza History to make that challenge right! PROVE to us the in-camera Zapruder film currently housed at NARA is indeed the original allegedly shot by Abraham Zapruder. Now, you've got absolutely NO incentive to do that, as these recent, less than stellar posting of yours indicate... so to me (and others) its a moot subject (and has been for a few years now - unless you need to score some newbies new to the case debate points -- knock yourself out), you're a waste of time Bill, nearly 10 years and you still sound the same. Uninformed!

It's not hard to see why the web page was created so to expose the one known as 'Drunky the Clown'. You have stated on this very forum that you have no proof that the Zapruder film is altered, so what do you mean now by saying the legitimacy of the Zapruder film is seriously challenged? Was it the silly claim that a girl turned into a boy, Toni Foster is 7' tall, or Moorman was standing in the street, that causes you to make such a statement contradictory to your previous statement of not having any proof that the film is altered?? I am looking to be informed by you, David. Please inform me as to what specifically do you find wrong with Zavada's presentation and be specific???

Bill Miller

Edited January 4, 2011 by Bill Miller