Larry Peters Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 dgh01: ah, yes the timeline, the real question is, WHO's time line? I suspect the Z-film would never make into a court of law, seeing that the chain of evidence was/is broken... -- we're racheting it up a notch, I see... I suggest for those that care - take a look at TGZFH -- asking so called film "experts" that have NO knowledge of optical film printing special effects [which were available in 1963] is a step forward, I guess. However I know off NO public comment made by Robert Ryan [further that, what was a "film technology dude looking at the Z-film for -- that's like Roland Zavada telling me how a optical printer works -- he doesn't know -- great at film properties, but doesn't know squat about film effects] stating he changed his mind. OR for that matter TRASK! As for TRASK, will you make available his bonifides? First time Great at amassing a database of JFK Assassination film/photos, but can he tell me or you what makes up a composite? I seriously doubt, but go ahead refer to him as a film expert... My understanding is that both Zavada and Ryan knew that if the images seen on the alleged camera original were not authentic, then there would be visible signs they could look for. When these men looked for these tell-tale signs, they could not find a single one. So unless I misunderstood Gary Mack, it appears that it wasn't a matter of anyone not being able to alter a film as much as if they had there would have been signs left behind showing it and they didn't find any such signs. btw, what test made up this "inspection" of the Z-film? The one that Trask and company performed, in fact: what did they find that told them the film was NOT altered? The boy's just lay out the film on the light table and discuss timelines? Roland Zavada was most interested in my take on the time line -- we discussed it while he was out west for a SMPTE meeting a few weeks ago. I cannot comment on what interest Zavada may or may not have concerning you and your take. I was left with the impression in an earlier post that my name had not come up in a conversation you had had with Gary Mack. I took that to mean that you had spoken to Mr. Mack personally. I have since heard through another researcher that the two of you had recently communicated by email only. So I am now aware that some things being said here can easily be misstated or at the very least - misunderstood. Because you can email Mr. Gary Mack directly and ask him the questions you've raised here ... why not do so and post the response you get back so there will be no confusion as to what was said. I for one would be interested in knowing what other information Gary Mack may have to share on this matter dgh01:Cost us USofA taxpayers 16million bucks [and still counting], I think we deserve to know -- don't you Gary? I think we deserve more direct replies to the claims of film and photo alteration, but they seem to never come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 dgh01: ah, yes the timeline, the real question is, WHO's time line? I suspect the Z-film would never make into a court of law, seeing that the chain of evidence was/is broken... -- we're racheting it up a notch, I see... I suggest for those that care - take a look at TGZFH -- asking so called film "experts" that have NO knowledge of optical film printing special effects [which were available in 1963] is a step forward, I guess. However I know off NO public comment made by Robert Ryan [further that, what was a "film technology dude looking at the Z-film for -- that's like Roland Zavada telling me how a optical printer works -- he doesn't know -- great at film properties, but doesn't know squat about film effects] stating he changed his mind. OR for that matter TRASK! As for TRASK, will you make available his bonifides? First time Great at amassing a database of JFK Assassination film/photos, but can he tell me or you what makes up a composite? I seriously doubt, but go ahead refer to him as a film expert...My understanding is that both Zavada and Ryan knew that if the images seen on the alleged camera original were not authentic, then there would be visible signs they could look for. When these men looked for these tell-tale signs, they could not find a single one. So unless I misunderstood Gary Mack, it appears that it wasn't a matter of anyone not being able to alter a film as much as if they had there would have been signs left behind showing it and they didn't find any such signs. dgh02: that may well be your understanding - the question is/was: What were they looking for, I know, do you know? Might want to check out Raymond Fielding's Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1965, plenty of footnotes and references to SMPE/SMPTE articles reviewing, defining, discussining the art of optical film effects. The book was updated again in 1985 (?) - I understand Fielding may still teaches at the University level in Florida. Roland Zavada spoke to him sometime in 2003, I believe the summer of 2003. Guess we generated enough interest in the subject to get HIS interest. I suspect you did not misunderstand Gary Mack, his problem with this issue may be: the "possible" expertise employed in doing such a "matte" job. One knowing how to employ mattes in the correct manner - leaves no trace! -------------- btw, what test made up this "inspection" of the Z-film? The one that Trask and company performed, in fact: what did they find that told them the film was NOT altered? The boy's just lay out the film on the light table and discuss timelines? Roland Zavada was most interested in my take on the time line -- we discussed it while he was out west for a SMPTE meeting a few weeks ago. I cannot comment on what interest Zavada may or may not have concerning you and your take. I was left with the impression in an earlier post that my name had not come up in a conversation you had had with Gary Mack. I took that to mean that you had spoken to Mr. Mack personally. I have since heard through another researcher that the two of you had recently communicated by email only. So I am now aware that some things being said here can easily be misstated or at the very least - misunderstood. Because you can email Mr. Gary Mack directly and ask him the questions you've raised here ... why not do so and post the response you get back so there will be no confusion as to what was said. I for one would be interested in knowing what other information Gary Mack may have to share on this matter dgh02: wow, a researcher friend told a friend Gary said..... listen Mr. Peter's, Gary Mack and I have communicated on various ocassions, specifically by e-mail -- we share some geographical ties, he's in the media, as well as I -- we differ in our opinion regarding the handling and usage of the alledged camera original Zapruder Film - the reason why he's talking with anyone regarding this thread is quite simply: "it's his JOB, the institution that employes him cares for many JFK Assassination films, some they control copyrights for. He/they have a vested interest in what's going on when discussion of the film appear, especially on a international forum. He does NOT publicly comment on threads directly, in short he doesn't POST. Am I telling you something you don't realize. My last communication with Gary Mack had nothing to do with the Zapruder Film. And HE initiated the contact - I'm for oneNOT amazed he's in the background re: this thread! Gary Mack and I have disputes of a professional nature. not personal. Frankly - I wouldn't want his job! My issues regarding the Z-film are well known and published in HOAX, Gary has seen and read my presentation as early as 4+ years ago, actually helped clear up a few issues. The film alteration issue can be resolved quite easily -- Give 4 or 5 film experts access to the camera original Z-film for testing. As a starter: forensic film testing to determine the density[amongst other things] of said camera original film. One can arrange for a University to host such testing.There's a few Physicist's and MD's that are quite curious as to why this hasn't been done. Roland Zavada didn't do it, WHY? Hey, he's the KODAK film properties guy! --------------- dgh01:Cost us USofA taxpayers 16million bucks [and still counting], I think we deserve to know -- don't you Gary? I think we deserve more direct replies to the claims of film and photo alteration, but they seem to never come. dgh02: WHY? You a US taxpayer? Listen Mr. Peter's, may come as a surprise to you, one can't claim they/he/she says the Z-film is altered, any more than YOU can say no it's not - any more than Gary, Roland Zavada, Josiah Thompson, David Blackburst and all the rest can. Why? No one has tested it, WHY? Hey, did you find the website where we, the contributors of HOAX responded to the nonsense coming from the Lancer crowd? I'll post it here later, under a different thread so the Lurkers hereabouts have a clean shot at seeing it -- Even I can't say the film is altered, was it possible to alter the film in 1964? "of course it was..." --------------- I don't claim the Z-film is altered dgh02: of course you don't - what do you claim? David Healy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 dgh02: WHY? You a US taxpayer? Listen Mr. Peter's, may come as a surprise to you, one can't claim they/he/she says the Z-film is altered, any more than YOU can say no it's not - any more than Gary, Roland Zavada, Josiah Thompson, David Blackburst and all the rest can. Why? No one has tested it, WHY? The thing is, if the Zapruder is altered, it hasn't been shown through those poorly thought out claims that I started referencing from TGZFH early on in this thread. Gary Mack has said that no one has produced one expert to support the assassination films being altered. If Gary is not right, then by all means tell us who they are? BTW - Here is some information on the Nix film that will interest about anyone but a Zapruder film alteraionist ... Oriville Nix had seen in the newspaper on the Tuesday or Wednesday following the assassination prints from the Zapruder film. Orville still had his film in the camera and the following Saturday he finishied shooting the Dealey Plaza roll of film at a football game before having it developed. Orville also had a copy of his film made at that time. Orville then sold his original copy to UPI a week or two later, but Orville kept the 1st generation copy with him. People that say the Nix or Zapruder film is altered don't understand or want to understand that when the Zapruder frames started getting into the public domain - no one knew if all the films had been made known yet. Any alteration could have easily been exposed as part of a conspiracy if a late comer had then made his or her film known. Nix is a good example of this because it wasn't until after 11/30/63 that he had his film being developed and duplicated. Now even if and when the original Nix film vanished - Orville still had with him the copy he had made before UPI or the Government knew he even took a film of the assassination. That copy remained with the Nix family until the early 90's. That copy showed everything the same way that the other films and photos of the assassination had done, thus there was no possible alteration of the Zapruder film or the Nix film would have exposed it as such. This information came from Gary Mack via Gayle Nix, Orville's granddaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 dgh02: WHY? You a US taxpayer? Listen Mr. Peter's, may come as a surprise to you, one can't claim they/he/she says the Z-film is altered, any more than YOU can say no it's not - any more than Gary, Roland Zavada, Josiah Thompson, David Blackburst and all the rest can. Why? No one has tested it, WHY?The thing is, if the Zapruder is altered, it hasn't been shown through those poorly thought out claims that I started referencing from TGZFH early on in this thread. Gary Mack has said that no one has produced one expert to support the assassination films being altered. If Gary is not right, then by all means tell us who they are? BTW - Here is some information on the Nix film that will interest about anyone but a Zapruder film alteraionist ... Oriville Nix had seen in the newspaper on the Tuesday or Wednesday following the assassination prints from the Zapruder film. Orville still had his film in the camera and the following Saturday he finishied shooting the Dealey Plaza roll of film at a football game before having it developed. Orville also had a copy of his film made at that time. Orville then sold his original copy to UPI a week or two later, but Orville kept the 1st generation copy with him. People that say the Nix or Zapruder film is altered don't understand or want to understand that when the Zapruder frames started getting into the public domain - no one knew if all the films had been made known yet. Any alteration could have easily been exposed as part of a conspiracy if a late comer had then made his or her film known. Nix is a good example of this because it wasn't until after 11/30/63 that he had his film being developed and duplicated. Now even if and when the original Nix film vanished - Orville still had with him the copy he had made before UPI or the Government knew he even took a film of the assassination. That copy remained with the Nix family until the early 90's. That copy showed everything the same way that the other films and photos of the assassination had done, thus there was no possible alteration of the Zapruder film or the Nix film would have exposed it as such. This information came from Gary Mack via Gayle Nix, Orville's granddaughter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is misinformation. Orville Nix himself himself said that his film had been changed. Additionally, the original film was retained by the government and never returned. Gayle Nix SUED TO GET THE FILM BACK, but was given only a copy. TO SUBSTANTIATE WHAT MACK CLAIMS, ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS PRODUCE THE CAMERA ORIGINAL WITH THE FOOTBALL GAME ON IT and let it be tested for authenticity. They cannot, or they would have. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 This is misinformation. Orville Nix himself himself said that his film had been changed. Additionally, the original film was retained by the government and never returned. Gayle Nix SUED TO GET THE FILM BACK, but was given only a copy. TO SUBSTANTIATE WHAT MACK CLAIMS, ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS PRODUCE THE CAMERA ORIGINAL WITH THE FOOTBALL GAME ON IT and let it be tested for authenticity. They cannot, or they would have. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr. White - I take it that when your first sentence said that "this is misinformation", that you were talking about the rest of your reply. You seem to miss some important points for some reason. For instance, the fact that the Zapruder frames were being put into the public domain at a time when no one could possibly have known about Nix's film or what it showed so to know what to alter on the Zfilm went over the top of your head. You also missed the point that Orville Nix had a copy of his film made when he first took it into have it developed. That's like going to the local photo lab with a roll of film and asking them to make double prints. Just because one print gets lost or damaged - you still have the second print. That copy made from the original film had remained in the Nix family's sole possession until the early 90's and well after the assassination or any possible film alteration had taken place. The film copy that "Orville Nix" had made back at the end of November 63' (the copy that no one but the Nix family possessed for the next 30 years) shows the exact same thing that the copies of the original Nix film shows. I don't know why the importance of all this escapes you, but that copy Orville Nix had made in the beginning had never gone out of the families possession for over 30 years. I hope that no one is going to suggest that the Nix family altered their original copy so to match your alleged altered version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 This is misinformation. Orville Nix himself himself said that his filmhad been changed. Additionally, the original film was retained by the government and never returned. Gayle Nix SUED TO GET THE FILM BACK, but was given only a copy. TO SUBSTANTIATE WHAT MACK CLAIMS, ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS PRODUCE THE CAMERA ORIGINAL WITH THE FOOTBALL GAME ON IT and let it be tested for authenticity. They cannot, or they would have. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr. White - I take it that when your first sentence said that "this is misinformation", that you were talking about the rest of your reply. You seem to miss some important points for some reason. For instance, the fact that the Zapruder frames were being put into the public domain at a time when no one could possibly have known about Nix's film or what it showed so to know what to alter on the Zfilm went over the top of your head. You also missed the point that Orville Nix had a copy of his film made when he first took it into have it developed. That's like going to the local photo lab with a roll of film and asking them to make double prints. Just because one print gets lost or damaged - you still have the second print. That copy made from the original film had remained in the Nix family's sole possession until the early 90's and well after the assassination or any possible film alteration had taken place. The film copy that "Orville Nix" had made back at the end of November 63' (the copy that no one but the Nix family possessed for the next 30 years) shows the exact same thing that the copies of the original Nix film shows. I don't know why the importance of all this escapes you, but that copy Orville Nix had made in the beginning had never gone out of the families possession for over 30 years. I hope that no one is going to suggest that the Nix family altered their original copy so to match your alleged altered version. Information obtained through Gary Mack: Nix thought some frames might have been ruined, as he told Mark Lane. The original film was sold to UPI in December 1963 and returned to UPI in 1978 by the HSCA. There is existing paperwork with signatures proving it. Gayle negotiated a return of the copyright to the family from UPI and all copies of the film they held and UPI agreed. Gayle received many 16 and 35mm prints and negatives, some dating to 1963. UPI admitted the 8mm camera original could not be found. All are now owned by The Sixth Floor Museum. First generation copies of the film have been available for viewing at no charge at The Sixth Floor Museum since 1995. Prints of the film obtained by Robert Groden in the late 1960's also include the football halftime footage filmed in Fort Worth on the evening of 11-30-63. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kerrigan Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 (edited) This is misinformation. Orville Nix himself himself said that his film had been changed. Additionally, the original film was retained by the government and never returned. Gayle Nix SUED TO GET THE FILM BACK, but was given only a copy. TO SUBSTANTIATE WHAT MACK CLAIMS, ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS PRODUCE THE CAMERA ORIGINAL WITH THE FOOTBALL GAME ON IT and let it be tested for authenticity. They cannot, or they would have. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr. White - I take it that when your first sentence said that "this is misinformation", that you were talking about the rest of your reply. You seem to miss some important points for some reason. For instance, the fact that the Zapruder frames were being put into the public domain at a time when no one could possibly have known about Nix's film or what it showed so to know what to alter on the Zfilm went over the top of your head. You also missed the point that Orville Nix had a copy of his film made when he first took it into have it developed. That's like going to the local photo lab with a roll of film and asking them to make double prints. Just because one print gets lost or damaged - you still have the second print. That copy made from the original film had remained in the Nix family's sole possession until the early 90's and well after the assassination or any possible film alteration had taken place. The film copy that "Orville Nix" had made back at the end of November 63' (the copy that no one but the Nix family possessed for the next 30 years) shows the exact same thing that the copies of the original Nix film shows. I don't know why the importance of all this escapes you, but that copy Orville Nix had made in the beginning had never gone out of the families possession for over 30 years. I hope that no one is going to suggest that the Nix family altered their original copy so to match your alleged altered version. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What Zapruder frames were being shown? Do you know which ones? Nix turned in his original film to the FBI on December 1. He requested and received a copy from the FBI and stated that the film does not appear as clear as his usual pictures. Years later, Nix's granddaughter Gayle Jackson claimed that her grandfather felt that the film had certain frames removed from it and that it had been edited by the government (Assassination Science, pg. 302-03). Edited July 8, 2004 by maynardsthirdeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 What Zapruder frames were being shown? Do you know which ones? They came out in the Newspapers the following week as I recall. You may see some of them on Ebay at times being sold individually or in lots. The Nix family seen those stills and I believe they found out (maybe through the newspaper) that the Zfilm had been sold. I believe the Nix family then got the idea that maybe their film was of some financial value as well. Nix turned in his original film to the FBI on December 1. He requested and received a copy from the FBI and stated that the film does not appear as clear as his usual pictures. Years later, Nix's granddaughter Gayle Jackson claimed that her grandfather felt that the film had certain frames removed from it and that it had been edited by the government (Assassination Science, pg. 302-03). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right. Nix did make that statement as I recall, but I believe he was not sure. One thing about the removal of frames - their removal can be detected because then the movements within the film will have jumps and variances that do not match the other films. More importantly - even if they had damaged or removed half of the original Nix film ... Orville still had the first generation copy in his sole possession. Here is some additional information that Gary Mack has been kind enough to share with researchers: The Nix film appeared in theatrical newsreels in late 1963/early 1964. The assassination footage was marketed extensively by UPI until 1992 when all rights to it were given back to the Nix family (and subsequently acquired by The Sixth Floor Museum). Nix received a first generation print of his film from UPI shortly after selling it to them in 1963. That print, badly worn over the years while in possession of the Nix family and no one else, was exchanged in 1992 for a previously unknown first generation 8mm print kept in the Dallas office of the FBI. That copy matches all known copies of the Nix film dating to 1963. No one knew of the existence of the Nix film outside of his family until he dropped it off for processing at the Dynacolor Corporation on Industrial Boulevard in Dallas late the night of November 30, 1963. Dynacolor called him the next day and both he and his son, Orville Nix, Jr, watched the film at Dynacolor on Sunday afternoon, December 1. It was only then that Nix decided to contact the FBI. Meanwhile, millions of issues of LIFE magazine had been distributed around the world for nearly a week with many frames of the Zapruder film. All of those frames are the same in the film today as in 1963 and the frames of both films that coincide in time match each other. What this means is that neither film was altered, nor were any others. The significance of the timeline is very easily understood and it has been a matter of record for 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kerrigan Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 What Zapruder frames were being shown? Do you know which ones? They came out in the Newspapers the following week as I recall. You may see some of them on Ebay at times being sold individually or in lots. The Nix family seen those stills and I believe they found out (maybe through the newspaper) that the Zfilm had been sold. I believe the Nix family then got the idea that maybe their film was of some financial value as well. Nix turned in his original film to the FBI on December 1. He requested and received a copy from the FBI and stated that the film does not appear as clear as his usual pictures. Years later, Nix's granddaughter Gayle Jackson claimed that her grandfather felt that the film had certain frames removed from it and that it had been edited by the government (Assassination Science, pg. 302-03). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right. Nix did make that statement as I recall, but I believe he was not sure. One thing about the removal of frames - their removal can be detected because then the movements within the film will have jumps and variances that do not match the other films. More importantly - even if they had damaged or removed half of the original Nix film ... Orville still had the first generation copy in his sole possession. Here is some additional information that Gary Mack has been kind enough to share with researchers: The Nix film appeared in theatrical newsreels in late 1963/early 1964. The assassination footage was marketed extensively by UPI until 1992 when all rights to it were given back to the Nix family (and subsequently acquired by The Sixth Floor Museum). Nix received a first generation print of his film from UPI shortly after selling it to them in 1963. That print, badly worn over the years while in possession of the Nix family and no one else, was exchanged in 1992 for a previously unknown first generation 8mm print kept in the Dallas office of the FBI. That copy matches all known copies of the Nix film dating to 1963. No one knew of the existence of the Nix film outside of his family until he dropped it off for processing at the Dynacolor Corporation on Industrial Boulevard in Dallas late the night of November 30, 1963. Dynacolor called him the next day and both he and his son, Orville Nix, Jr, watched the film at Dynacolor on Sunday afternoon, December 1. It was only then that Nix decided to contact the FBI. Meanwhile, millions of issues of LIFE magazine had been distributed around the world for nearly a week with many frames of the Zapruder film. All of those frames are the same in the film today as in 1963 and the frames of both films that coincide in time match each other. What this means is that neither film was altered, nor were any others. The significance of the timeline is very easily understood and it has been a matter of record for 40 years. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But which frames were published? Insignificant early frames could have been published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kerrigan Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 What Zapruder frames were being shown? Do you know which ones? They came out in the Newspapers the following week as I recall. You may see some of them on Ebay at times being sold individually or in lots. The Nix family seen those stills and I believe they found out (maybe through the newspaper) that the Zfilm had been sold. I believe the Nix family then got the idea that maybe their film was of some financial value as well. Nix turned in his original film to the FBI on December 1. He requested and received a copy from the FBI and stated that the film does not appear as clear as his usual pictures. Years later, Nix's granddaughter Gayle Jackson claimed that her grandfather felt that the film had certain frames removed from it and that it had been edited by the government (Assassination Science, pg. 302-03). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right. Nix did make that statement as I recall, but I believe he was not sure. One thing about the removal of frames - their removal can be detected because then the movements within the film will have jumps and variances that do not match the other films. More importantly - even if they had damaged or removed half of the original Nix film ... Orville still had the first generation copy in his sole possession. Here is some additional information that Gary Mack has been kind enough to share with researchers: The Nix film appeared in theatrical newsreels in late 1963/early 1964. The assassination footage was marketed extensively by UPI until 1992 when all rights to it were given back to the Nix family (and subsequently acquired by The Sixth Floor Museum). Nix received a first generation print of his film from UPI shortly after selling it to them in 1963. That print, badly worn over the years while in possession of the Nix family and no one else, was exchanged in 1992 for a previously unknown first generation 8mm print kept in the Dallas office of the FBI. That copy matches all known copies of the Nix film dating to 1963. No one knew of the existence of the Nix film outside of his family until he dropped it off for processing at the Dynacolor Corporation on Industrial Boulevard in Dallas late the night of November 30, 1963. Dynacolor called him the next day and both he and his son, Orville Nix, Jr, watched the film at Dynacolor on Sunday afternoon, December 1. It was only then that Nix decided to contact the FBI. Meanwhile, millions of issues of LIFE magazine had been distributed around the world for nearly a week with many frames of the Zapruder film. All of those frames are the same in the film today as in 1963 and the frames of both films that coincide in time match each other. What this means is that neither film was altered, nor were any others. The significance of the timeline is very easily understood and it has been a matter of record for 40 years. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But which frames were published? Insignificant early frames could have been published. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And I want to know; If the films weren't altered, how do you explain the violent backwards head snap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 (edited) And I want to know; If the films weren't altered, how do you explain the violent backwards head snap? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You need to be more specific - what is there about the head snapping backwards that would make you think the films were altered because I have never read or heard where any witnesses have ever said that Kennedy's head did anything other than what has been seen on the assassination films? BTW - some of the frames that were in the newspaper were showing Jackie on the back of the car after the shots. I am certain that frame Z313 was not placed in the newspaper. A lot of libraries carry major newspapers on microfilm. Contact a branch near you and ask if the Dallas Morning News or Dallas Hearld are on microfilm there and if they have them, then you can go in and scroll through them looking for these published frames. Edited July 9, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 dgh02: WHY? You a US taxpayer? Listen Mr. Peter's, may come as a surprise to you, one can't claim they/he/she says the Z-film is altered, any more than YOU can say no it's not - any more than Gary, Roland Zavada, Josiah Thompson, David Blackburst and all the rest can. Why? No one has tested it, WHY?The thing is, if the Zapruder is altered, it hasn't been shown through those poorly thought out claims that I started referencing from TGZFH early on in this thread. Gary Mack has said that no one has produced one expert to support the assassination films being altered. If Gary is not right, then by all means tell us who they are? dgh03: nope, no time for "The thing is ..." might you post some of those poorly though out Zapruder alteration claims and correct the errors of the alteration proponents right here -----> you really, really NEED to read up on this subject Mr. Peter's -- hacking away at Jack White who quite frankly has little to say regarding Z-film alteration debate misses the mark -- your looking for ME, Dr. John Costella and Dr. David Mantik and David Lifton. Having Gary Mack prop you up is, well let's just say your losing credibility with each post...in short, you need a little help, your in over your head champ-- Have you found that website yet? You know, the one that we HOAX contributors set up to answer all these burning questions covering our presentations? Ask Gary, I'm sure he knows what I speak of. ------------------- BTW - Here is some information on the Nix film that will interest about anyone but a Zapruder film alteraionist ... dgh03: nonsense..... the below is stock -n- trade JFK research disinformation, *late comer*, haven;t heard this one for ages -- I suspect this came to Mr. Peter's via e-mail from the 6th Floor Museum recently, REAL recently. I suspect Mr. Peter's has NEVER viewed the Nix film... and the beat goes on! David Healy Oriville Nix had seen in the newspaper on the Tuesday or Wednesday following the assassination prints from the Zapruder film. Orville still had his film in the camera and the following Saturday he finishied shooting the Dealey Plaza roll of film at a football game before having it developed. Orville also had a copy of his film made at that time. Orville then sold his original copy to UPI a week or two later, but Orville kept the 1st generation copy with him. People that say the Nix or Zapruder film is altered don't understand or want to understand that when the Zapruder frames started getting into the public domain - no one knew if all the films had been made known yet. Any alteration could have easily been exposed as part of a conspiracy if a late comer had then made his or her film known. Nix is a good example of this because it wasn't until after 11/30/63 that he had his film being developed and duplicated. Now even if and when the original Nix film vanished - Orville still had with him the copy he had made before UPI or the Government knew he even took a film of the assassination. That copy remained with the Nix family until the early 90's. That copy showed everything the same way that the other films and photos of the assassination had done, thus there was no possible alteration of the Zapruder film or the Nix film would have exposed it as such. This information came from Gary Mack via Gayle Nix, Orville's granddaughter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 (edited) dgh03: nope, no time for "The thing is ..." might you post some of those poorly though out Zapruder alteration claims and correct the errors of the alteration proponents right here -----> you really, really NEED to read up on this subject Mr. Peter's -- hacking away at Jack White who quite frankly has little to say regarding Z-film alteration debate misses the mark -- your looking for ME, Dr. John Costella and Dr. David Mantik and David Lifton. Having Gary Mack prop you up is, well let's just say your losing credibility with each post...in short, you need a little help, your in over your head champ-- Mr. Healy - Your memory must be very short for I did start posting the errors mentioned in TGZFH and not once did you address any of them. Now your talking as if you know nothing about my doing this. On page 3 and 4 of this thread there were examples being presented showing Mr. White's mistakes and this is what you said ... dgh: What you don't realize Mr. Peter's: Jack White has recognized his mistakes and moved on. Now you are talking like you want them all posted again. Maybe if you'd start addressing them one by one, then we can go through a process of elimination to see if there are any that can stand under their own weight. Here is another example of your stonewalling ... dgh01: there we go again -- Mr White this, Mr. White that -- if you can't post the photographic evidence supporting your accusations re Jack White here, please post them to a website so ALL of us can review what material your basing your criticisms on. You were then given a web address that contains the detailed analysis of those claims and this is how you dealt with it ... Gimme something tangible to take to the media Mr. Peter's - BMiller's material doesn't pass muster-- How long will it be till your presentations are available? Your right, there's no need to spend a single second more dealing with this nonsense -- a complete waste of my not to mention this forums time, so Larry say hello to Debra and Bill Miller for me, have a nice summer... and lighten up on Jack White -- we're the last of photog's that know what their talking about. So far you have done nothing but post rhetoric. You now ask to post what's wrong with the claims - go back in this thread and choose one and we'll get started testing them. dgh03: nonsense..... the below is stock -n- trade JFK research disinformation, *late comer*, haven;t heard this one for ages -- I suspect this came to Mr. Peter's via e-mail from the 6th Floor Museum recently, REAL recently. I suspect Mr. Peter's has NEVER viewed the Nix film... and the beat goes on! My understanding is that the information originally came from the Nix family. Gary Mack called and spoke directly to the Nix family. He has since known them for over 20 years and Orville Nix Jr. and Gayle (the granddaughter of Orville Sr.) are still alive and you are invited to contact them yourself like any researcher can do for verification as to what's been said here. Edited July 9, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 (edited) dgh03: nope, no time for "The thing is ..." might you post some of those poorly though out Zapruder alteration claims and correct the errors of the alteration proponents right here ----->you really, really NEED to read up on this subject Mr. Peter's -- hacking away at Jack White who quite frankly has little to say regarding Z-film alteration debate misses the mark -- your looking for ME, Dr. John Costella and Dr. David Mantik and David Lifton. Having Gary Mack prop you up is, well let's just say your losing credibility with each post...in short, you need a little help, your in over your head champ-- Mr. Healy - Your memory must be very short for I did start posting the errors mentioned in TGZFH and not once did you address any of them. Now your talking as if you know nothing about my doing this. On page 3 and 4 of this thread there were examples being presented showing Mr. White's mistakes and this is what you said ... dgh04: nah, well maybe just a little - when you reach my age, memory -- eh, you know. I will admit: developing a short fuse for disinformationists, propogandists and deceivers, though. You know, the folks that CAN'T handle "research" that perhaps, is contrary to their **PET** beliefs. You know the kind? --------------------- dgh: What you don't realize Mr. Peter's: Jack White has recognized his mistakes and moved on. Now you are talking like you want them all posted again. Maybe if you'd start addressing them one by one, then we can go through a process of elimination to see if there are any that can stand under their own weight. dgh04: Mr. Peter's -- evidently you can't find the website where your questions about JFK related photos/films discussed in TGZFH are debated. I use to call it the dueling WEBSITE bake off.... Not to worry I'll post the URL for you, you may then witness what *real* PHOTO researchers have to say about the subject. Both Pro and Con -- you know any of the following folks... Joe Durnavich - Louis Girdler - James Gordon - Ron Hepler - Barb Junkkarinen - Craig Lamson - Dave Perry - Josiah Thompson - David Wimp. Ready for an education on the subject matter? If not you will... -------------------- Here is another example of your stonewalling ... dgh04: your going to need some help, I'd suggest you get in touch with Bill Miller a self provclaimed expert, however he does use Photoshop from what I can gather, you'll need some expertise in the software when we get underway, you'll also need the book TGZFH... ------------ dgh01: there we go again -- Mr White this, Mr. White that -- if you can't post the photographic evidence supporting your accusations re Jack White here, please post them to a website so ALL of us can review what material your basing your criticisms on. You were then given a web address that contains the detailed analysis of those claims and this is how you dealt with it ... Gimme something tangible to take to the media Mr. Peter's - BMiller's material doesn't pass muster-- How long will it be till your presentations are available? Your right, there's no need to spend a single second more dealing with this nonsense -- a complete waste of my not to mention this forums time, so Larry say hello to Debra and Bill Miller for me, have a nice summer... and lighten up on Jack White -- we're the last of photog's that know what their talking about. So far you have done nothing but post rhetoric. You now ask to post what's wrong with the claims - go back in this thread and choose one and we'll get started testing them. dgh04: nope just warming up - stay tuned! ---------------- dgh03: nonsense..... the below is stock -n- trade JFK research disinformation, *late comer*, haven;t heard this one for ages -- I suspect this came to Mr. Peter's via e-mail from the 6th Floor Museum recently, REAL recently. I suspect Mr. Peter's has NEVER viewed the Nix film... and the beat goes on! My understanding is that the information originally came from the Nix family. Gary Mack called and spoke directly to the Nix family. He has since known them for over 20 years and Orville Nix Jr. and Gayle (the granddaughter of Orville Sr.) are still alive and you are invited to contact them yourself like any researcher can do for verification as to what's been said here. dgh04:I should hope he continues to communicate with 'film owner' -- the film/photo collection at the Museum is extensive and under Gary purview, so I suspect are film/photo copyright holder PA's, quotes and comments - a job he does well, I might add. ------------------ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Edited July 9, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 dgh02: WHY? You a US taxpayer? Listen Mr. Peter's, may come as a surprise to you, one can't claim they/he/she says the Z-film is altered, any more than YOU can say no it's not - any more than Gary, Roland Zavada, Josiah Thompson, David Blackburst and all the rest can. Why? No one has tested it, WHY?The thing is, if the Zapruder is altered, it hasn't been shown through those poorly thought out claims that I started referencing from TGZFH early on in this thread. Gary Mack has said that no one has produced one expert to support the assassination films being altered. If Gary is not right, then by all means tell us who they are? BTW - Here is some information on the Nix film that will interest about anyone but a Zapruder film alteraionist ... Oriville Nix had seen in the newspaper on the Tuesday or Wednesday following the assassination prints from the Zapruder film. Orville still had his film in the camera and the following Saturday he finishied shooting the Dealey Plaza roll of film at a football game before having it developed. Orville also had a copy of his film made at that time. Orville then sold his original copy to UPI a week or two later, but Orville kept the 1st generation copy with him. People that say the Nix or Zapruder film is altered don't understand or want to understand that when the Zapruder frames started getting into the public domain - no one knew if all the films had been made known yet. Any alteration could have easily been exposed as part of a conspiracy if a late comer had then made his or her film known. Nix is a good example of this because it wasn't until after 11/30/63 that he had his film being developed and duplicated. Now even if and when the original Nix film vanished - Orville still had with him the copy he had made before UPI or the Government knew he even took a film of the assassination. That copy remained with the Nix family until the early 90's. That copy showed everything the same way that the other films and photos of the assassination had done, thus there was no possible alteration of the Zapruder film or the Nix film would have exposed it as such. This information came from Gary Mack via Gayle Nix, Orville's granddaughter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is misinformation. Orville Nix himself himself said that his film had been changed. Additionally, the original film was retained by the government and never returned. Gayle Nix SUED TO GET THE FILM BACK, but was given only a copy. TO SUBSTANTIATE WHAT MACK CLAIMS, ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS PRODUCE THE CAMERA ORIGINAL WITH THE FOOTBALL GAME ON IT and let it be tested for authenticity. They cannot, or they would have. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gayle Nix Jackson was one of the JFK "witnesses" who presented a talk and answered questions at Jim Marrs' ADVANCED JFK STUDY GROUP in the 80s. I emailed Jim asking what his remembrances of her appearances were. Here is Jim's reply. QUOTE: Howdy Jack, My recollection is the same as yours. I remember that Gayle said she was trying to get the original film back. And I know for certain, since it is covered in the Mark Lane documentary, that Orville Nix claimed the film returned to him was not the same film he took. He specifically said that certain frames were missing. Is Gayle still around? Can you check with her about all this? Best regards, Jim 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