Hacked again?

[Michael Hogan]

Mike, I have posted on this before, so why are you pretending not to heard it? If I were the opposition and wanted to derail a proper investigation based on new evidence towards a conspiracy, I would bring up the alteration claims so to make CT's as a whole look like complete lunatics. Is this fair - absolutely not, but it has been a successful modus-operandi that has worked against us in the past.

Bill, although you gave me a rather churlish invitation to stop reading your posts, I didn't bother to mention that for the most part, I quit reading them some time ago. If you think this case revolves around the Zapruder alteration evidence, you are truly operating in a vacuum. I actually think you don't concern yourself much with evidence outside the realm of your interest. There have been important books by Law, Waldron, McKnight, and Armstrong and several others in the last few years. Have you read any of them? Larry Hancock has a very important one coming out in a few weeks. Members of this Forum have made significant advances in many areas. The scenario you depicted above is such a small piece of the puzzle.

Let me also remind you of something else ... the alteration threads get more reads than most of the threads on a single page put together. When I visit the plaza each year around the anniversary, I get more questions pertaining to the alteration claims than anything else. Then I hear people like yourself complain about these threads, but yet you also read them on an obvious regular basis.

Well, damn Bill. Maybe that is because of Jack White. Using reads as your barometer of value, Craig Lamson and David Healey must be two of the more important people involved in JFK Assassination study. Somehow, I think not. It does not surprise me that you get questions from people in the plaza about alteration. After all, that is your chosen area of specialization. Every time you and I were on the telephone, that was all you wanted to talk about. When I attempted to talk about other aspects of the case, you almost always brought the conversation back to film analysis. Finally, I gave up.

I read every thread on this forum on a regular basis. All of it interests me. The opinions and findings of brilliant people like John Simkin, Robert Charles-Dunne, Bill Kelly, James Richards, Robert Howard, Ron Ecker, Greg Parker, Larry Hancock, Ashton Gray, Lee Forman, and quite a few others that don't post as regularly have rekindled my interest in this subject. I'm going to have to edit this post and add the names of those that I have inadvertantly left out. And sure, I'll admit I get a wry amusement out of reading the posts of some of the know-it-alls that frequent here. And as much as I hate to admit this, sometimes I enjoy the hell out of taunting them. None of the members I just mentioned by name act like they know it all. In fact, all of them are very cooperative in sharing information that could make a difference in this case. In contrast, look at others who do act like they know it all. They are the ones that routinely make fools of themselves on this Forum by acting contentious when their often ridiculous beliefs are challenged. Of course, sometimes I am guilty of the very contentious behavior I mock. I try to keep it at a minimum.

A person with a new interest in and a modest knowledge about the facts of this case could come to this Forum, and employ just a modicum of intelligence and within a week or two figure out for the most part who is credible and who is not.

Then I hear people like yourself complain about these threads, but yet you also read them on an obvious regular basis. That's similar to those individuals who complain about the silly stories in the National Enquirer and yet they buy and read each copy that hits the newsstands.

How many times before it sinks in Bill? I complained about your tactics and strategy; that's what started this debate between us. Why do you keep insisting I complain about these threads? Sure, you may be able to go back and pick out something out of context, but just keep in mind how this all began.

Tell me, Bill. What do you mean by "people like myself?" Is that a veiled way of saying "people of your ilk?" You want to lump me in a group, fine. I could do the same with you, but I won't. I'm sure you think your analogy is a clever one; you have used it many times before. But, in this case it's not apt. In case you didn't know it, the National Enquirer has broken some important ground in the past. While I won't buy one at the news stand, if there is a current copy in my doctor's office, I'll pick it up, scan it, and see if there is anything of interest to me. Who knows, I might even see something about Bob Groden in there.

The day that my major concern is for Jack White and not attempting to keep the record straight as to what happened to JFK - then that will be the day I walk away from it all.

Bill, what is your major concern? David Healy? I know that the film record is your area of interest, but there is a lot more to keeping the record straight as to what happened to JFK than keeping up a daily dialog with Jack White and David Healy. Do you give a damn about so many other things that constitute potential progress in this case? Many here know there was a conspiracy. Many of them want to know who did it; how was it done; exactly how was it covered up. Time is running out. Did you read Robert Howard's post about reclassification of documents? Witnesses are dying. There's not many left. Reputable researchers have been unable to reach any sort of a consensus on what happened. Not many of them are left that can make a difference. Some good people are trying hard, but it doesn't look good for justice, or even a solution. Some people realized long ago this case would likely never be solved, hoping all the while they were mistaken. I'm not dismissing the importance of the film evidence, it was and is critical to understanding what happened. But Bill, most of the research has already been done. The film evidence has helped to prove conspiracy. What's really left beyond that?

Bill, if everyone that suspects the Zapruder film was altered suddenly changed their minds and determined that it was authentic, how would that really change things? Can you answer that?

Edited September 4, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Bill Miller]

Bill, what is your major concern? David Healy? I know that the film record is your area of interest, but there is a lot more to keeping the record straight as to what happened to JFK than keeping up a daily dialog with Jack White and David Healy. Do you give a damn about so many other things that constitute potential progress in this case?

Mike, when we talked last, I complimented you and others for being able to keep up with all the other kinds of evidence of the case. I told you that while some researchers can juggle all those Cuban names and various players - I cannot! The Photographical record is my area of expertise and interest, thus that is the area I concentrate on. You may have noticed that Jack chimes in on other parts of the case which I do not respond to for the reasons I stated above. We will have to agree to disagree on my degree of interest pertaining to the alteration aspect of the case. Without allowing anyone to see Robert's remarks about Jack's alteration work ... I have quoted Robert pertaining to my work in the photographical area of the case. My work has been praised by such people as Dennis David, William Law, Joan Mellen, Gary Mack, Debra Conway, Sherry Gutierrez, and the list goes on. I get emails from people on this forum who I never heard of before who read these threads who have asked that I never back down, so it appears that I am not going to be able to please them and you at the same time. Allow me to share just a few of some of those messages ...

"I'm almost getting to where I can't stand to read these posts any more. The abject stupidity of these photo alteration groupies is overwhelming me. Anyway, just a note to commend you on keeping the fight alive for rational logic."

"Hi Bill, Just want you to know that I agree with 98.5 % of everything you say. I know Jack White thinks the Z film was highly altered and that the moon landing(s) were faked. Interestingly for me, I gave Neil Armstrong a ride in my taxi in Scottsdale, Arizona in 1984....."

"I just want to voice my appreciation for all the fine photographic analysis you do, though I imagine it must be tiring having to deal with the Fetzer-White-Healey gang. Your work on the Zapruder film at the Lancer forum saved me from almost believing "The Zapruder Hoax" fantasies."

From Robert Groden, "Bill: Whenever you have ever asked for clarification or answers to any photographic issues, I have tried to help.

Your work has always been right on the money. In the matter of the Zapruder film’s authenticity and many of the other issues such as foreshortening, and other technical issues, you have been 100% right and Jack has been 100% wrong. I always have and always will back you when you are correct. The record must remain straight. This Zapruder film alteration foolishness has done so much harm, that it can not be measured. It is now spilling over into other areas of the photographic evidence in the Kennedy case. I am extremely frustrated by it all. You have always defended me, and my work, against vicious attacks from several members of the lunatic fringe in the Kennedy case over the years. This has always been, and is, appreciated as ever. In all the years that I’ve known you, I have been amazed at your grasp of photographic science and the issues of the Kennedy case photographic evidence. I have never known you to be wrong. The small computer visuals that you have created are spectacular. Your work, Bill, has always been right on. I have always supported you, and will continue to do so. In the issues that have been raised about photo analysis of the Zapruder film and nearly all, if not completely all, of the other issues that I am aware of, it is you who has been correct in every case.

Robert"

Edited September 4, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Brian Smith]

Bill, if everyone that suspects the Zapruder film was altered suddenly changed their minds and determined that it was authentic, how would that really change things? Can you answer that?

If the film were to be proven authentic, I would be more open to the idea of the head shot coming from behind. Of course, this is no doubt what the people behind the film alteration intended. But there is no way all those witnesses were wrong, and the film is right. Even the official autopsy photos of the face contradict the film.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Brian Smith

[Bill Miller]

If the film were to be proven authentic, I would be more open to the idea of the head shot coming from behind. Of course, this is no doubt what the people behind the film alteration intended. But there is no way all those witnesses were wrong, and the film is right. Even the official autopsy photos of the face contradict the film.

Brian, do you care to tell us why you think the autopsy photos of JFK's face contradict the Zapruder film?

Bill Miller

Edited September 4, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Brendan Slattery]

If the film were to be proven authentic, I would be more open to the idea of the head shot coming from behind.

It's authentic. No one's ever proven otherwise.

Of course, this is no doubt what the people behind the film alteration intended.

What alteration? What people? Name names, sonny.

But there is no way all those witnesses were wrong, and the film is right.

Who? Jean Hill? I'll take photographic and medical evidence over eyewitness testimony any day.

Even the official autopsy photos of the face contradict the film.

Huh?

[Brian Smith]

If the film were to be proven authentic, I would be more open to the idea of the head shot coming from behind. Of course, this is no doubt what the people behind the film alteration intended. But there is no way all those witnesses were wrong, and the film is right. Even the official autopsy photos of the face contradict the film.

Brian, do you care to tell us why you think the autopsy photos of JFK's face contradict the Zapruder film?

Bill Miller

Yes. Where in the Zapruder film frame is all that brain matter on top of the head, that is so plainly visible in the autopsy photo? Why does the film seem to show so much of the top front part of the face missing, while the autopsy photo shows no such damage to the face?

[Brian Smith]

It is very interesting that both of you responded within seconds of my post. Very interesting.

[Bill Miller]

It is very interesting that both of you responded within seconds of my post. Very interesting.

Don't alarm yourself with Brendan ... he never cites facts, thus he is the true poster boy for trolling. Getting back to your post ... I fail to see why you think the face is damaged in the Zapruder film? You do know, don't you - that the bone plate from atop of the head is overturned and hanging down the right front side of JFK's face. Because it is hanging down like this - we are seeing the underside of JFK's bone plate/skull bone and not a damaged face. If anything it is the autopsy photo showing from where this bone plate came from that may be altered in some way. Certainly, the size of the bone plate in the autopsy photo does not match the plate seen on the Zfilm.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Any explanation?

Jack

I asked a simple question of the forum managers. It turned into

a nine-page thread "attacking Jack White". How come? Is this any

way to run a JFK forum?

I asked a simple two word question and we get nine pages of OFF TOPIC

AD HOMINEM ATTACKS on me. The forum moderators are not paying

attention.

Jack

[Brian Smith]

It is very interesting that both of you responded within seconds of my post. Very interesting.

Don't alarm yourself with Brendan ... he never cites facts, thus he is the true poster boy for trolling. Getting back to your post ... I fail to see why you think the face is damaged in the Zapruder film? You do know, don't you - that the bone plate from atop of the head is overturned and hanging down the right front side of JFK's face. Because it is hanging down like this - we are seeing the underside of JFK's bone plate/skull bone and not a damaged face. If anything it is the autopsy photo showing from where this bone plate came from that may be altered in some way. Certainly, the size of the bone plate in the autopsy photo does not match the plate seen on the Zfilm.

Bill Miller

It just looks to me as if a very large portion is missing in the facial/forehead area. I can't see where on the right side of the face the entire bone plate is supposed to be. I have heard of the so-called "flap" of scalp and bone on the right side, but not the whole bone plate/scull bone. Those frames just don't look right in my opinion. Too much brain and scull near the area of the forehead seems to be entirely missing. Virtually all the witnesses who saw the head wound up close described the face as being perfectly intact.

[Len Colby]

Any explanation?

Jack

I asked a simple question of the forum managers. It turned into

a nine-page thread "attacking Jack White". How come? Is this any

way to run a JFK forum?

I asked a simple two word question and we get nine pages of OFF TOPIC

AD HOMINEM ATTACKS on me. The forum moderators are not paying

attention.

Jack

Jack if it upsets you that this thread went off topic you should take it up with your co-author David Healy because he is the person who brought up the Zapruder film here. Jack you lost any grounds you had to complain about persnal attacks with that murder accusation thread you started.

[Michael Hogan]

I asked a simple question of the forum managers. It turned into

a nine-page thread "attacking Jack White". How come? Is this any

way to run a JFK forum?

I asked a simple two word question and we get nine pages of OFF TOPIC

AD HOMINEM ATTACKS on me. The forum moderators are not paying attention.

Yes, I do enjoy the perverse compliment of their attacks; it means I am on the right track.

[Jack White]

I asked a simple question of the forum managers. It turned into

a nine-page thread "attacking Jack White". How come? Is this any

way to run a JFK forum?

I asked a simple two word question and we get nine pages of OFF TOPIC

AD HOMINEM ATTACKS on me. The forum moderators are not paying attention.

Yes, I do enjoy the perverse compliment of their attacks; it means I am on the right track.

So they do this for my enjoyment? How thoughtful. Nice guys!

Jack

[Jack White]

I asked a simple question of the forum managers. It turned into

a nine-page thread "attacking Jack White". How come? Is this any

way to run a JFK forum?

I asked a simple two word question and we get nine pages of OFF TOPIC

AD HOMINEM ATTACKS on me. The forum moderators are not paying attention.

Yes, I do enjoy the perverse compliment of their attacks; it means I am on the right track.

So they do this for my enjoyment? How thoughtful. Nice guys!

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Jack if it upsets you that this thread went off topic you should take it up with your co-author David Healy because he is the person who brought up the Zapruder film here. Jack you lost any grounds you had to complain about persnal attacks with that murder accusation thread you started.

Jack has spent too much time on JFK Research (aka. The Jack White Show) where he was protected from criticism. There Jack could make his own rules and relish the idea that he would not be held to the same standards as the other members who didn't agree with him. Below is the post from this forum that Len made which was followed by the forum xxxxx who hijacked this thread by referencing Zavada's report on the Zapruder film. Jack seems to only be concerned about thread hijacking if it is done by those who do not support his alteration claims.

Post 16 - Len: Jack for all your complaints about provocateurs on this forum lately the worst offender has been you, stop being such a hypocrite. Let’s see you keep accusing Bill of being somebody else, you started what was it three or four threads attacking Gary Mack, you called Evan a xxxx for correctly citing your position that the Moon landings were faked. Just today you accused Brendan, Craig, Bill and I of being accessories after the fact to the JFK assassination because we cast doubt on your theory that just about every image taken in DP that day was altered, funny you didn’t level that accusation at Grodin or Martin Schakleford or Josiah Thompson who have likewise opposed your theories. And now you insinuate without any evidence that Evan was responsible for bringing down the forum should I point out that your co-author John Costella is also an Australian and that he has written sophisticated computer programs and that Sid Walker a webmaster also hails from “down under”. It seems that John Simkin was wrong anyway according to info turned up by John Dolva and Dave Weaver the hacker was based in Osaka not Australia.

Evan’s position AFAIK is that he has no position regarding the assassination, He has opposed your nonsense regarding the Moon landings, ‘chemtrails’ and 9/11. In all those cases he gets the better of you so there would be no need from him to want to crash the forum.

Post 18 - Healy: When it comes to "theories", how is Roalnd Zavada and Ray Fielding doing re the upcoming new and improved ZAVADA report....? As you, representing [to this forum] their side of the report; how are they pprogressing? 8 months and counting.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Bill Miller