Looking for Zapruder

[Jack White]

I have never claimed to be a saint. I do research. I do not initiate personal attacks.

There is a goon squad here who does nothing but that.

Jack

Yea right...ROFLMAO!

In her unsurpassed 1967 ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, only

three years after the assassination, Sylvia Meagher correctly

pointed out that those who knowingly help killers escape justice

are also culpable...the lesser CRIMINAL charges of obstruction of

justice and accessories after the fact.

Let's say "Brendan" robs a 7-11 and kills the clerk, a clear case

of capital murder. He runs to the getaway car, driven by "Craig".

In the law, both "Brendan" and "Craig" are equally guilty of

capital murder. They drive to the house of "Len" and plead,

"we've just killed a guy, and you gotta hide us!" In complying,

"Len" becomes an accessory after the fact and a part of the

criminal act. "Len" phones his friend "Bill" and says, "You gotta

help clear these guys, put out phony stories that help clear

them." I am not an attorney, but that is the law, simplified.

All of these guys would be convicted of CRIMINAL ACTS

when brought to trial. Some are murderers, and some are

accessories after the fact...but all are guilty.

(In the above "scenario", all names are fictitious, and any resemblance

to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.)

Sound familiar? On this forum, there are several who knowingly

obstruct justice by helping the true murderers of the president

escape. This is a criminal act. A day of justice will come.

Jack

Thanks for the accurate quote. Notice that I said...

"(In the above "scenario", all names are fictitious, and any resemblance

to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.)"

If there is anyone here who suspects that the names in "QUOTES" refers

to them, perhaps they have a guilty conscience....no wait, there are some

here who have no conscience.

Jack

[Thomas Graves]

Todays mystery: The assassination occurred on 11/22/63 ... what year was it that Jack started seeing a waltzing Sitzman and how many strokes did he have to get to that point?

The single most shameful and contemptible post I've yet seen on an assassination website.

_______________________________

Paul,

I agree.

--Thomas

_______________________________

[Jack White]

Yes, I sure do believe this cr--p has been altered.

Please prove what colored dress she is wearing in your supplied Bronson photo. post2

I have asked over and over for Bill to post his quality stuff so there is no doubt about what we are seeing.

I guess what he supplied in post2 is his quality stuff.

chris

It is one thing to believe the films and photos are altered, but making moronic errered observations by way of the poorer quailty images to choose from makes you look incompetent. For instance, what kind of ridiculous statement was that you made about proving what colored dress Sitzman wore in the Bronson slide which shows the woman in deep shadow due to the angle at which she was photographed in relation to the sun? Do you know that you can take a photo of the same person from the same location with two cameras and have their clothing to appear to be different colors just because of the difference in film stock that they used? Let me offer a proof of alteration using your logic ... In sunlight the limo is blue, but in shadow while passing through the underpass it is black ... this must mean the film has been altered! How more silly can one be about it!

Bill could you please post a full frame of the Bronson slide in question? Also I need to clear up a little history about the Bronson slide. IIRC is it correct that the original slide was quite under-exposed? Did someone create a lightened dupelicate slide?

Thanks

Why ask Bill? As far as I know, ALL COPIES OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ORIGINAL WERE MADE BY ME.

Bill has never seen the original. I have. I copied it both in color and b/w. I gave Groden and Gary

Mack good copies of the slide, and I think Gary Shaw also. Reproductions you see in books were

from my copies.

The original Bronson slide was WELL EXPOSED, but had the characteristic blocked up green areas

characteristic of Kodachorme, though I do not remember the slide mount, nor do I remember examining

the original emulsion for the characteristic "etch" of Kodachrome. The color saturation looked more like

Kodachrome than Ektachrome (shadows in green areas are dark, like Kodachrome.)

The exposure was made with a camera with a focal plane shutter (I later confirmed it was a Leica)

at a slow shutter speed, likely one-thirtieth, because the camera was "jiggled" halfway through the

exposure while the shutter curtain was traveling across the focal plane. This resulted in the LEFT HALF

of the slide having NO BLUR (pedestal area), but the right having VERTICAL MOTION BLUR (limo area).

If I had the ability to post images here, I would post a good image of the entire slide, showing the

excellent color quality. Perhaps Chris will post it for me. I sent him a scan from one of my slides.

Chris...it is OK with me if you post the full Bronson slide here. Researchers need something better

to examine than they have seen before. Convert the TIFF I sent you to JPG in order to post it.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Todays mystery: The assassination occurred on 11/22/63 ... what year was it that Jack started seeing a waltzing Sitzman and how many strokes did he have to get to that point?

The single most shameful and contemptible post I've yet seen on an assassination website.

_______________________________

Paul,

I agree.

--Thomas

_______________________________

What a bunch of candy-asses. Can anyone say if Jack has even ever had a stroke? I am not aware that he has. This isn't like looking at a handicapped person and making fun of them. I implied that he must have had several strokes to screw up his thinking so that every goddamned thing he sees is altered. Someone tell me then if saying Jack must be ignorant - or Jack must be retarded - or Jack must be involved with JFK's murder would be as bad ... these are things he has said about others, so where was the bleeding hearted whine asses then? I personally would much rather be said to have 'stroked out' as a form of expression to say that my photo interpretation ability sucks Vs. being said to have been involved in the assassination. There certainly seems to be a double standard at play here.

Edited January 30, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Yes, I sure do believe this cr--p has been altered.

Please prove what colored dress she is wearing in your supplied Bronson photo. post2

I have asked over and over for Bill to post his quality stuff so there is no doubt about what we are seeing.

I guess what he supplied in post2 is his quality stuff.

chris

It is one thing to believe the films and photos are altered, but making moronic errered observations by way of the poorer quailty images to choose from makes you look incompetent. For instance, what kind of ridiculous statement was that you made about proving what colored dress Sitzman wore in the Bronson slide which shows the woman in deep shadow due to the angle at which she was photographed in relation to the sun? Do you know that you can take a photo of the same person from the same location with two cameras and have their clothing to appear to be different colors just because of the difference in film stock that they used? Let me offer a proof of alteration using your logic ... In sunlight the limo is blue, but in shadow while passing through the underpass it is black ... this must mean the film has been altered! How more silly can one be about it!

Bill could you please post a full frame of the Bronson slide in question? Also I need to clear up a little history about the Bronson slide. IIRC is it correct that the original slide was quite under-exposed? Did someone create a lightened dupelicate slide?

Thanks

Why ask Bill? As far as I know, ALL COPIES OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ORIGINAL WERE MADE BY ME.

Bill has never seen the original. I have. I copied it both in color and b/w. I gave Groden and Gary

Mack good copies of the slide, and I think Gary Shaw also. Reproductions you see in books were

from my copies.

The original Bronson slide was WELL EXPOSED, but had the characteristic blocked up green areas

characteristic of Kodachorme, though I do not remember the slide mount, nor do I remember examining

the original emulsion for the characteristic "etch" of Kodachrome. The color saturation looked more like

Kodachrome than Ektachrome (shadows in green areas are dark, like Kodachrome.)

The exposure was made with a camera with a focal plane shutter (I later confirmed it was a Leica)

at a slow shutter speed, likely one-thirtieth, because the camera was "jiggled" halfway through the

exposure while the shutter curtain was traveling across the focal plane. This resulted in the LEFT HALF

of the slide having NO BLUR (pedestal area), but the right having VERTICAL MOTION BLUR (limo area).

If I had the ability to post images here, I would post a good image of the entire slide, showing the

excellent color quality. Perhaps Chris will post it for me. I sent him a scan from one of my slides.

Chris...it is OK with me if you post the full Bronson slide here. Researchers need something better

to examine than they have seen before. Convert the TIFF I sent you to JPG in order to post it.

Jack

Not a problem,

Bronson photo contributed by Jack White.

thanks

chris

[Jack White]

I have never claimed to be a saint. I do research. I do not initiate personal attacks.

There is a goon squad here who does nothing but that.

Jack

In response to Baghdad Bob Jack White's remarks:

"The provocateurs make much of the "harmony" of all the other

movies with Zapruder.

Maybe they forgot to look at Z380 and N90, which are "officially"

at the same instant.

Please explain the "harmony" of these two frames.

Only facts, please. No personal attacks, please.

If these frames do not match, please post the Z frame which

matches N90.

Failure to meet this challenge proves the provocateurs DO NOT

HAVE A CLUE and are only here to PROVOKE.

Have fun.

Jack "

Reply: There is one problem with Jack's claim that is worth noting before doing anything else .... Jack used the MPI Z380 and didn't account for MPI's misnumbering of the frames. Below is the MPI frame Jack used against the correct frame created by Costella. It was Gary Mack who pointed out MPI's numbering mistake long ago and I assume that Jack was aware of it, but simply had forgotten about it. I would however, recommend to Jack that before making any more alteration claims that he at least makes sure that his information is correct before starting!

Another time Jack didn't resort to personal attacks:

Jack said, "Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made!

It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!

Nobody but a dunce would think that!"

Here is yet another post by Jack that didn't deal with any facts as he claims that he always does. Instead, Jack tried to mae a case for Craig being able to post at the times that he does.

Jack: "Duane...I have dealt with dozens of good pro photographers, and most of

them were extremely busy with photo shoots. Check the times of Lamson's

postings...all day long...he must have no clients at all...just sits around

posting infantile crap on this forum. A successful photographer is usually

in great demand, but he has no work apparently. But he must have an

income from some source. Maybe he gets residual pay for taking those

Apollo studio shots. Many of them are so good they went undetected for

years. Good lighting (for studio work)."

Jack "

There are many more ... how much overkill do you want to see, Jack?

I appreciate the accuracy of your quotes. Thanks. It helps to let the unaware

know who is who and what is what.

By the way, saying someone is IGNORANT OF A FACT is not a personal

attack. It means that they are uninformed on the subject. There are many

facts I am ignorant of...but I don't pretend to be "expert" in things I am

ignorant of; others seem not to mind demonstrating their ignorance.

Jack

Edited January 30, 2007 by Jack White

[Bill Miller]

Another lie...the pedestal is NOT IN DEEP SHADOW. The Bronson slide shows a complete shadow

of the pedestal. The ground around the pedestal is in full sunlight. It is basic that if the SUN CREATES

A SHADOW ON THE GROUND OF AN OBJECT, THE OBJECT IS IN FULL SUNLIGHT. This guy has

absolutely NO credibility. His sycophants are in the same category.

Jack

Jack, you have the reasoning power of a solar powered battery on a cloudy day! Sitzman is in the shadow of Zapruder you babbbling senile twit. This has been pointed out many times. It's funny how when it comes to the BDM that you claim he has been altered to hide his identity and when the same sort of exposure happens to Sitzman due to the distance from the subject to the camera in relation to the sun's location as seen in Bronson's images ... you say Sitzman is in a black dress. I know of know other person who knows anything about film or photography that supports the silly things you proclaim.

By the way, saying someone is IGNORANT OF A FACT is not a personal

attack. It means that they are uninformed on the subject. There are many

facts I am ignorant of...but I don't pretend to be "expert" in things I am

ignorant of; others seem not to mind demonstrate their ignorance.

The hell you say, Jack! Would you like for me to find post you made where you said someone was "ignorant" and made no mention of facts?

Bill Miller

PS; Jack you double talk so much - I don't think that you know when you are doing it. Below is yet another example of you doing it ....

Mr. Lamson clearly has never been exposed to LOGICAL THINKING.

Apollo photographs are FAKED, therefore the RECORD of the photography is FAKED.

It would be stupid to say the Apollo Surface Journal is genuine since the photos are NOT.

It is logical to consider the written record fiction since it is written about imaginary events

which did not take place.

Jack

Contradition:

That is a lie. I have never said the landings were faked. I have always

said THE PHOTOS ARE FAKED. That is why Burton has zero credibility.

Jack

Edited January 30, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Todays mystery: The assassination occurred on 11/22/63 ... what year was it that Jack started seeing a waltzing Sitzman and how many strokes did he have to get to that point?

The single most shameful and contemptible post I've yet seen on an assassination website.

_______________________________

Paul,

I agree.

--Thomas

_______________________________

What a bunch of candy-asses. Can anyone say if Jack has even ever had a stroke? I am not aware that he has. This isn't like looking at a handicapped person and making fun of them. I implied that he must have had several strokes to screw up his thinking so that every goddamned thing he sees is altered. Someone tell me then if saying Jack must be ignorant - or Jack must be retarded - or Jack must be involved with JFK's murder would be as bad ... these are things he has said about others, so where was the bleeding hearted whine asses then? I personally would much rather be said to have 'stroked out' as a form of expression to say that my photo interpretation ability sucks Vs. being said to have been involved in the assassination. There certainly seems to be a double standard at play here.

Relax, "Miller" (or whoever you are)...if you get too apoplectic, you MIGHT HAVE A STROKE!

Jack

[Jack White]

Yes, I sure do believe this cr--p has been altered.

Please prove what colored dress she is wearing in your supplied Bronson photo. post2

I have asked over and over for Bill to post his quality stuff so there is no doubt about what we are seeing.

I guess what he supplied in post2 is his quality stuff.

chris

It is one thing to believe the films and photos are altered, but making moronic errered observations by way of the poorer quailty images to choose from makes you look incompetent. For instance, what kind of ridiculous statement was that you made about proving what colored dress Sitzman wore in the Bronson slide which shows the woman in deep shadow due to the angle at which she was photographed in relation to the sun? Do you know that you can take a photo of the same person from the same location with two cameras and have their clothing to appear to be different colors just because of the difference in film stock that they used? Let me offer a proof of alteration using your logic ... In sunlight the limo is blue, but in shadow while passing through the underpass it is black ... this must mean the film has been altered! How more silly can one be about it!

Bill could you please post a full frame of the Bronson slide in question? Also I need to clear up a little history about the Bronson slide. IIRC is it correct that the original slide was quite under-exposed? Did someone create a lightened dupelicate slide?

Thanks

Why ask Bill? As far as I know, ALL COPIES OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ORIGINAL WERE MADE BY ME.

Bill has never seen the original. I have. I copied it both in color and b/w. I gave Groden and Gary

Mack good copies of the slide, and I think Gary Shaw also. Reproductions you see in books were

from my copies.

The original Bronson slide was WELL EXPOSED, but had the characteristic blocked up green areas

characteristic of Kodachorme, though I do not remember the slide mount, nor do I remember examining

the original emulsion for the characteristic "etch" of Kodachrome. The color saturation looked more like

Kodachrome than Ektachrome (shadows in green areas are dark, like Kodachrome.)

The exposure was made with a camera with a focal plane shutter (I later confirmed it was a Leica)

at a slow shutter speed, likely one-thirtieth, because the camera was "jiggled" halfway through the

exposure while the shutter curtain was traveling across the focal plane. This resulted in the LEFT HALF

of the slide having NO BLUR (pedestal area), but the right having VERTICAL MOTION BLUR (limo area).

If I had the ability to post images here, I would post a good image of the entire slide, showing the

excellent color quality. Perhaps Chris will post it for me. I sent him a scan from one of my slides.

Chris...it is OK with me if you post the full Bronson slide here. Researchers need something better

to examine than they have seen before. Convert the TIFF I sent you to JPG in order to post it.

Jack

Not a problem,

Bronson photo contributed by Jack White.

thanks

chris

Thanks, Chris. That is an unenhanced copy made from the original slide. I suggest

that people who say it is poor quality compare it to their copies.

The fact that it is a good quality slide does not mean that it has not been retouched.

I believe that the pedestal area was retouched, though poorly. Bronson did say that

the FBI had custody of both his slide and movie, but returned them saying that they

showed "nothing of interest because the sixth floor window was not seen".

Jack

[Jack White]

By the way, in the Bronson slide, the man in white cap and shirt in the center

of the slide SEEMS TO HAVE A BASEBALL GLOVE on his right hand. Am I the only

one who thinks that an oddity?

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Relax, "Miller" (or whoever you are)...if you get too apoplectic, you MIGHT HAVE A STROKE!

Jack

No apology coming from me, but I will show the forum some more of your (Jack) examples of how you do not attack people ....

Jack: "O'Reilly is an asshole jerk who never served in the military, while

Fetzer was a Marine Corps officer in Vietnam."

Jack commenting on a forum members looks: "You are right, Shanet. A makeover would do

wonders for his self-esteem."

Read this thread ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=ignorant

A forum member says, "Jack is quite mistaken there are numerous photos of the WFC Winter Garden post 9/11."

Jack responds: "Thanks, horsesasses! How kind of you."

Anyone wish to see more of Jack never attacking anyone and only offering facts???

Jack: "Colby and Ulman are oblivious to the fact that their postings

portray them to everyone as first class horses asses. "

How about Len quoting some of the things Jack has said to members which he calls 'not attacking anyone but rather only citing facts' ....

Len writes: You know Jack if you tended to be gracious when your "opponents" made mistakes (or when you thought they had) you might have some what of a point but in such situations you tend to use expressions like "ignorant", "fool" and "meaningless mass of xxxx". In other words you have fewer legs to stand on than a quadruple amputee. You are highly provocative do you remember:

-all those threads you started insinuating that Bill Miller was really somebody else or

-all the ones you started asking about Gary Mack's status, or

-all those 'stupid provocateur' ones, or

-the idiotic thread you started insinuating I was some sort of Brazilian secret agent, or

-the one where you called Evan a xxxx because he correctly cited your position that the Moon landings were faked, or

-the time you accused a few other members of the forum and me of being accessories after the fact to the JFK assassination?

Bill Miller

Edited January 31, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Relax, "Miller" (or whoever you are)...if you get too apoplectic, you MIGHT HAVE A STROKE!

Jack

No apology coming from me, but I will show the forum some more of your (Jack) examples of how you do not attack people ....

Jack: "O'Reilly is an asshole jerk who never served in the military, while

Fetzer was a Marine Corps officer in Vietnam."

Jack commenting on a forum members looks: "You are right, Shanet. A makeover would do

wonders for his self-esteem."

Read this thread ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=ignorant

A forum member says, "Jack is quite mistaken there are numerous photos of the WFC Winter Garden post 9/11."

Jack responds: "Thanks, horsesasses! How kind of you."

Anyone wish to see more of Jack never attacking anyone and only offering facts???

Jack: "Colby and Ulman are oblivious to the fact that their postings

portray them to everyone as first class horses asses. "

How about Len quoting some of the things Jack has said to members which he calls 'not attacking anyone but rather only citing facts' ....

Len writes: You know Jack if you tended to be gracious when your "opponents" made mistakes (or when you thought they had) you might have some what of a point but in such situations you tend to use expressions like "ignorant", "fool" and "meaningless mass of xxxx". In other words you have fewer legs to stand on than a quadruple amputee. You are highly provocative do you remember:

-all those threads you started insinuating that Bill Miller was really somebody else or

-all the ones you started asking about Gary Mack's status, or

-all those 'stupid provocateur' ones, or

-the idiotic thread you started insinuating I was some sort of Brazilian secret agent, or

-the one where you called Evan a xxxx because he correctly cited your position that the Moon landings were faked, or

-the time you accused a few other members of the forum and me of being accessories after the fact to the JFK assassination?

Bill Miller

"Miller" must have read "apoplectic" as APOLOGETIC. Slow down, "Miller" and comprehend.

You might have a stroke if you keep being in an apoplectic rage.

Main Entry: ap·o·plec·tic

Pronunciation: "a-p&-'plek-tik

Function: adjective

Etymology: French or Late Latin; French apoplectique, from Late Latin apoplecticus, from Greek apoplEktikos,

from apoplEssein

1 : of, relating to, or causing stroke

2 : affected with, inclined to, or showing symptoms of stroke

3 : of a kind to cause or apparently cause stroke <an apoplectic rage>; also : greatly excited or angered <was

apoplectic over the news>

[Craig Lamson]

Yes, I sure do believe this cr--p has been altered.

Please prove what colored dress she is wearing in your supplied Bronson photo. post2

I have asked over and over for Bill to post his quality stuff so there is no doubt about what we are seeing.

I guess what he supplied in post2 is his quality stuff.

chris

It is one thing to believe the films and photos are altered, but making moronic errered observations by way of the poorer quailty images to choose from makes you look incompetent. For instance, what kind of ridiculous statement was that you made about proving what colored dress Sitzman wore in the Bronson slide which shows the woman in deep shadow due to the angle at which she was photographed in relation to the sun? Do you know that you can take a photo of the same person from the same location with two cameras and have their clothing to appear to be different colors just because of the difference in film stock that they used? Let me offer a proof of alteration using your logic ... In sunlight the limo is blue, but in shadow while passing through the underpass it is black ... this must mean the film has been altered! How more silly can one be about it!

Bill could you please post a full frame of the Bronson slide in question? Also I need to clear up a little history about the Bronson slide. IIRC is it correct that the original slide was quite under-exposed? Did someone create a lightened dupelicate slide?

Thanks

Why ask Bill? As far as I know, ALL COPIES OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ORIGINAL WERE MADE BY ME.

Bill has never seen the original. I have. I copied it both in color and b/w. I gave Groden and Gary

Mack good copies of the slide, and I think Gary Shaw also. Reproductions you see in books were

from my copies.

The original Bronson slide was WELL EXPOSED, but had the characteristic blocked up green areas

characteristic of Kodachorme, though I do not remember the slide mount, nor do I remember examining

the original emulsion for the characteristic "etch" of Kodachrome. The color saturation looked more like

Kodachrome than Ektachrome (shadows in green areas are dark, like Kodachrome.)

The exposure was made with a camera with a focal plane shutter (I later confirmed it was a Leica)

at a slow shutter speed, likely one-thirtieth, because the camera was "jiggled" halfway through the

exposure while the shutter curtain was traveling across the focal plane. This resulted in the LEFT HALF

of the slide having NO BLUR (pedestal area), but the right having VERTICAL MOTION BLUR (limo area).

If I had the ability to post images here, I would post a good image of the entire slide, showing the

excellent color quality. Perhaps Chris will post it for me. I sent him a scan from one of my slides.

Chris...it is OK with me if you post the full Bronson slide here. Researchers need something better

to examine than they have seen before. Convert the TIFF I sent you to JPG in order to post it.

Jack

Well that copy slide seems to leave a lot to be desired, the contrast build is huge, blowing out the highlights and blocking up the shadows.

Regardless Bill is correct, the bulk of Zapruder is in shadow. His body position is similar to the man in the tan jacket with the little kid. Like Zapruder he is mostly in shadow, the difference being Zapruder is dressed in black and as such the small area in highlight do not add much density to his image. Based on all of the other images of Zap and SItz and comparing los and camera viewpoints, the bronson slide is consistant, placing Sitz directly behind Zap.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

By the way, in the Bronson slide, the man in white cap and shirt in the center

of the slide SEEMS TO HAVE A BASEBALL GLOVE on his right hand. Am I the only

one who thinks that an oddity?

Jack

I'll bet that's a paper lunch sack. Especially since it was lunch time.

[Bill Miller]

Why ask Bill? As far as I know, ALL COPIES OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ORIGINAL WERE MADE BY ME.

Bill has never seen the original. I have. I copied it both in color and b/w. I gave Groden and Gary

Mack good copies of the slide, and I think Gary Shaw also. Reproductions you see in books were

from my copies.

The original Bronson slide was WELL EXPOSED, but had the characteristic blocked up green areas

characteristic of Kodachorme, though I do not remember the slide mount, nor do I remember examining

the original emulsion for the characteristic "etch" of Kodachrome. The color saturation looked more like

Kodachrome than Ektachrome (shadows in green areas are dark, like Kodachrome.)

The exposure was made with a camera with a focal plane shutter (I later confirmed it was a Leica)

at a slow shutter speed, likely one-thirtieth, because the camera was "jiggled" halfway through the

exposure while the shutter curtain was traveling across the focal plane. This resulted in the LEFT HALF

of the slide having NO BLUR (pedestal area), but the right having VERTICAL MOTION BLUR (limo area).

Jack

Like Groden has said, "Jack is almost always wrong". This is information I obtained from Gary Mack, "Jack's information is inaccurate. The original Bronson slide is only a little underexposed, but it is much brighter than Jack's very dark copies. The version on Trask's POTP is much closer to the original than anything Jack has shown.

Furthermore, the FBI NEVER had possession of the Bronson slides or movies. Two FBI agents viewed them WITH Bronson at Kodak on Monday afternoon, 11/25, then Bronson went home with the pictures. Until Earl Golz and I visited him on November 9, 1978, no one outside of Bronson's family had ever seen them and they were never out of his possession."

Bill Miller