John Dolva Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 I think the fact that we don't have the B film today is a good reason to say that the Z film was not comprehensively altered, because if it was so undetectably altered as some suggest, then why haven't they released the supporting B version. They've had the B film for 43 years, time enough to produce a version to show anything they wish, surely? So, they haven't, because it cannot be done. The B film is not here today because from where it was taken it showed something that proves particular Z film interpretations and disproves others. It shows something so convincingly that it would clearly point in the right direction. John...a few comments on your interesting posting: ...we do not know that the Z film was COMPREHENSIVELY altered. Perhaps only small portions were altered so it would fit the official story. Evidence seems clear that the LIMO STOP was removed, as an example. ....the Zfilm was not UNDETECTABLY altered. I refer you to the studies of Dr. Costella at: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html Costella points out numerous anomalies he DETECTED showing alteration. Jack Jack, I agree with you that the film we have today is not fully as original, largely as you suggest re 'portions'. And I also agree that the changes made are detectable, though perhaps not as Costella suggests. I have my own ideas on that and continue to read in order to try to understand it better. Thank's for your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 I think the fact that we don't have the B film today is a good reason to say that the Z film was not comprehensively altered, because if it was so undetectably altered as some suggest, then why haven't they released the supporting B version. They've had the B film for 43 years, time enough to produce a version to show anything they wish, surely? So, they haven't, because it cannot be done. The B film is not here today because from where it was taken it showed something that proves particular Z film interpretations and disproves others. It shows something so convincingly that it would clearly point in the right direction. John...a few comments on your interesting posting: ...we do not know that the Z film was COMPREHENSIVELY altered. Perhaps only small portions were altered so it would fit the official story. Evidence seems clear that the LIMO STOP was removed, as an example. ....the Zfilm was not UNDETECTABLY altered. I refer you to the studies of Dr. Costella at: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html Costella points out numerous anomalies he DETECTED showing alteration. Jack Jack, I agree with you that the film we have today is not fully as original, largely as you suggest re 'portions'. And I also agree that the changes made are detectable, though perhaps not as Costella suggests. I have my own ideas on that and continue to read in order to try to understand it better. Thank's for your comments. Thanks, John...I would be interested in any things you perceive that indicate alterations to the Zfilm. Maybe you have spotted things that others of us have not. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 (edited) I'll do that Jack, but not in detail just now. I don't know if it's anything new. I'll just mention some of it in order to see if it corresponds with what others have found . One thing I could say is that in looking at the frames in pairs there's a strangeness about 314 that I can't explain. There seems to be blur lacking where I would expect them. It's almost as if some light solvent was appilied and the film smudged. This is a suggestion I haven't come across before. Also I think there is a frame mssing from the torn bit around 206, and I don't know what Gordon says about that set. IOW 313 is actually 314 etc. Edited September 15, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 I'll do that Jack, but not in detail just now. I don't know if it's anything new. I'll just mention some of it in order to see if it corresponds with what others have found . One thing I could say is that in looking at the frames in pairs there's a strangeness about 314 that I can't explain. There seems to be blur lacking where I would expect them. It's almost as if some light solvent was appilied and the film smudged. This is a suggestion I haven't come across before. Also I think there is a frame mssing from the torn bit around 206, and I don't know what Gordon says about that set. IOW 313 is actually 314 etc. I look forward to anything you find out. Two questions: ...what is the "torn bit" you mention? ...who is "Gordon"? Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 18, 2006 Share Posted September 18, 2006 Beverly Oliver has been sending me some of her interesting old photos. Here a very young Bev singing with a western band. As a lifelong "leg man", I must say, nice legs Bev! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 18, 2006 Share Posted September 18, 2006 Here, researcher Dick Sprague embraces Bev at a symposium. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 18, 2006 Share Posted September 18, 2006 Beverly Oliver has been sending me some of her interestingold photos. Here a very young Bev singing with a western band. As a lifelong "leg man", I must say, nice legs Bev! Jack Beverly has emailed me that the old photo of her singing with the "Dewey Groom western band" was early in 1963, because of the long hair. When she went to work at Six Flags that summer, she cut her hair short, and it was short when she went to work at Abe Weinstein's club. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted September 18, 2006 Share Posted September 18, 2006 Appendage Analysis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now