Discussion:
Zapruder film anomaly
(too old to reply)
deke
2013-03-07 02:33:30 UTC
Permalink
I ran across this video recently. If you go to the five minute point, it
shows Zapruder's camera panning past a lamp post. It seems strange that
the far background doesn't seem to move at all with respect to the lamp
post. I'm wondering if the lamp post is still there. If it is, it would be
worthwhile to try to duplicate that portion of the Z film.
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-07 15:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
I ran across this video recently. If you go to the five minute point, it
shows Zapruder's camera panning past a lamp post. It seems strange that
the far background doesn't seem to move at all with respect to the lamp
post. I'm wondering if the lamp post is still there. If it is, it would be
worthwhile to try to duplicate that portion of the Z film.
What video? Post a link to it.
FYI the lamp post was moved several years ago.
Why should the background move? Was there an Earthquake? Zapruder panned
his camera to follow the limousine motion.
deke
2013-03-07 20:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.


Anthony Marsh
2013-03-09 00:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Alterationist nonsense. It will take several messages to address each
point. I'll work on it this weekend. Looks like we're going to get snowed
in again.
Walt
2013-03-09 03:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Alterationist nonsense. It will take several messages to address each
point. I'll work on it this weekend. Looks like we're going to get snowed
in again.
What's unusual ...... You provide one snow job after another.....a
virtual blizzard.
mainframetech
2013-03-10 00:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Alterationist nonsense. It will take several messages to address each
point. I'll work on it this weekend. Looks like we're going to get snowed
in again.
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery. It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder. The problems with the Z-film go
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.

Chris
deke
2013-03-16 16:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Alterationist nonsense. It will take several messages to address each
point. I'll work on it this weekend. Looks like we're going to get snowed
in again.
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery. It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder. The problems with the Z-film go
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. We have to remember that 1963 was not the stone age and there was
some very sophisticated technology around that could have been used to
alter images. This is even more true today as this shows:

Loading Image...&imgrefurl=http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/23748/&h=594&w=524&sz=67&tbnid=tXW9DRX1XwJDjM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=80&zoom=1&usg=__hxtb3sp9EV-U97u3SZ0nOomgsRM=&docid=OGN2wtdEIU65qM&itg=1&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d4dEUfPOJLe24AO2soCQAw&ved=0CDAQ9QEwAA&dur=1104
Walt
2013-03-16 22:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Alterationist nonsense. It will take several messages to address each
point. I'll work on it this weekend. Looks like we're going to get snowed
in again.
  The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery.  It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder.  The problems with the Z-film go
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. We have to remember that 1963 was not the stone age and there was
some very sophisticated technology around
Hoover's FBI had the finest labs available........



that could have been used to
Post by deke
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/pictur...
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-17 02:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walt
Post by deke
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Alterationist nonsense. It will take several messages to address each
point. I'll work on it this weekend. Looks like we're going to get snowed
in again.
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery. It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder. The problems with the Z-film go
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. We have to remember that 1963 was not the stone age and there was
some very sophisticated technology around
Hoover's FBI had the finest labs available........
Now, wait a damn minute here. You are not an approved member of the
Fetzer Alterationist Club. They claim it was an Ultra Top Secret CIA
photo lab. The FBI was not as sophisticated as the CIA.
Post by Walt
that could have been used to
Post by deke
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/pictur...
mainframetech
2013-03-17 16:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Walt
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Alterationist nonsense. It will take several messages to address each
point. I'll work on it this weekend. Looks like we're going to get snowed
in again.
   The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery.  It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder.  The problems with the Z-film go
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. We have to remember that 1963 was not the stone age and there was
some very sophisticated technology around
Hoover's FBI had the finest labs available........
Now, wait a damn minute here. You are not an approved member of the
Fetzer Alterationist Club. They claim it was an Ultra Top Secret CIA
photo lab. The FBI was not as sophisticated as the CIA.
I'm in agreement that the CIA had a better lab for phony film
processing. It was located in the Kodak plant and was called
“Hawkeyeworks”. It had possession of the Zapruder film for long
enough to do all sorts of magic stuff to it.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Walt
that could have been used to
Post by deke
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/pictur...
Now are you going to be picking apart the above video, or the
special film processing plant? Or both?


Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-18 02:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Walt
Post by deke
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Alterationist nonsense. It will take several messages to address each
point. I'll work on it this weekend. Looks like we're going to get snowed
in again.
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery. It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder. The problems with the Z-film go
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. We have to remember that 1963 was not the stone age and there was
some very sophisticated technology around
Hoover's FBI had the finest labs available........
Now, wait a damn minute here. You are not an approved member of the
Fetzer Alterationist Club. They claim it was an Ultra Top Secret CIA
photo lab. The FBI was not as sophisticated as the CIA.
I'm in agreement that the CIA had a better lab for phony film
processing. It was located in the Kodak plant and was called
?Hawkeyeworks?. It had possession of the Zapruder film for long
enough to do all sorts of magic stuff to it.
Then why didn't they? Why did they spend all their time trying to figure
out the timing of the shots? Surely they could manufacture any timing they
wanted.

Add or take out shots.
Post by mainframetech
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Walt
that could have been used to
Post by deke
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/pictur...
Now are you going to be picking apart the above video, or the
special film processing plant? Or both?
I am not going to answer it in a message to you. It deserves to be
answered to the original koo, er poster.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
mainframetech
2013-03-18 16:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Walt
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Alterationist nonsense. It will take several messages to address each
point. I'll work on it this weekend. Looks like we're going to get snowed
in again.
    The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery.  It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder.  The problems with the Z-film go
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. We have to remember that 1963 was not the stone age and there was
some very sophisticated technology around
Hoover's FBI had the finest labs available........
Now, wait a damn minute here. You are not an approved member of the
Fetzer Alterationist Club. They claim it was an Ultra Top Secret CIA
photo lab. The FBI was not as sophisticated as the CIA.
   I'm in agreement that the CIA had a better lab for phony film
processing.  It was located in the Kodak plant and was called
?Hawkeyeworks?.  It had possession of the Zapruder film for long
enough to do all sorts of magic stuff to it.
Then why didn't they? Why did they spend all their time trying to figure
out the timing of the shots? Surely they could manufacture any timing they
wanted.
Odd you would say that. I would think they spent much of their time
faking the frame 313 situation and a few other things because they
knew you would come along and be fooled by their machinations...:)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Add or take out shots.
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Walt
that could have been used to
Post by deke
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/pictur...
   Now are you going to be picking apart the above video, or the
special film processing plant?  Or both?
I am not going to answer it in a message to you. It deserves to be
answered to the original koo, er poster.
Welp, that takes care of that...no picking apart for us.

Chris

Anthony Marsh
2013-03-17 01:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Alterationist nonsense. It will take several messages to address each
point. I'll work on it this weekend. Looks like we're going to get snowed
in again.
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery. It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder. The problems with the Z-film go
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. We have to remember that 1963 was not the stone age and there was
some very sophisticated technology around that could have been used to
Anachronism. That was Double 8 mm film. The ghost images in the
intersprocket hole area would reveal such fakery.
Post by deke
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/picture/dudeofwrath/Lee_Harvey_Oswald_Sings.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/23748/&h=594&w=524&sz=67&tbnid=tXW9DRX1XwJDjM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=80&zoom=1&usg=__hxtb3sp9EV-U97u3SZ0nOomgsRM=&docid=OGN2wtdEIU65qM&itg=1&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d4dEUfPOJLe24AO2soCQAw&ved=0CDAQ9QEwAA&dur=1104
curtjester1
2013-03-10 01:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
I would like to add the people watching the parade on the side of the
street next to the sign aren't active, and they aren't waving like a
normal crowd would be.

CJ
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-10 16:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
I would like to add the people watching the parade on the side of the
street next to the sign aren't active, and they aren't waving like a
normal crowd would be.
CJ
Very old myth.
curtjester1
2013-03-11 23:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
I would like to add the people watching the parade on the side of the
street next to the sign aren't active, and they aren't waving like a
normal crowd would be.
CJ
Very old myth.
Why theorize, when one can just watch the film?

CJ
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-12 04:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by deke
Oops - forgot to post the link. Here it is.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
I would like to add the people watching the parade on the side of the
street next to the sign aren't active, and they aren't waving like a
normal crowd would be.
CJ
Very old myth.
Why theorize, when one can just watch the film?
No theorizing. Just a simple observation.
Post by curtjester1
CJ
deke
2013-03-09 01:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
What video? Post a link to it.
FYI the lamp post was moved several years ago.
Why should the background move? Was there an Earthquake? Zapruder panned
his camera to follow the limousine motion.
Try extending your arm in front of your face and look at your hand. Slowly
turn your head and you will notice the background moving with respect to
your hand. That doesn't happen in the Z film. It looks like the lamp post
and the background are in the same spacial plane. BTW, do you know why the
lamp post was moved?
Walt
2013-03-09 03:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
What video? Post a link to it.
FYI the lamp post was moved several years ago.
Why should the background move? Was there an Earthquake? Zapruder panned
his camera to follow the limousine motion.
Try extending your arm in front of your face and look at your hand. Slowly
turn your head and you will notice the background moving with respect to
your hand. That doesn't happen in the Z film. It looks like the lamp post
and the background are in the same spacial plane. BTW, do you know why the
lamp post was moved?
Deke.... the thread "Geometry Anyone" is directly related to your post
here....I'd appreciate your response to that post.
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-09 04:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
What video? Post a link to it.
FYI the lamp post was moved several years ago.
Why should the background move? Was there an Earthquake? Zapruder panned
his camera to follow the limousine motion.
Try extending your arm in front of your face and look at your hand. Slowly
turn your head and you will notice the background moving with respect to
your hand. That doesn't happen in the Z film. It looks like the lamp post
and the background are in the same spacial plane. BTW, do you know why the
lamp post was moved?
Something like that. But the lamp post and the background only look to
you like they are in the same spatial plane because the camera was on
full telephoto.
I think they moved the lamp posts back to discourage people from jumping
the curb and knocking them over. It might be discussed in the minutes of
some town board meeting.
Or reported in the paper. I do not remember exactly when they moved them
but it was something like 1968/69.
Herbert Blenner
2013-03-09 15:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
What video? Post a link to it.
FYI the lamp post was moved several years ago.
Why should the background move? Was there an Earthquake? Zapruder panned
his camera to follow the limousine motion.
Try extending your arm in front of your face and look at your hand. Slowly
turn your head and you will notice the background moving with respect to
your hand. That doesn't happen in the Z film. It looks like the lamp post
and the background are in the same spacial plane. BTW, do you know why the
lamp post was moved?
Your eyes are not on the axis of rotation of the head. So they change
position with rotation of your head. This situation differs from a
properly panned camera where the primary focus remains in the same
position as camera’s line of sight changes direction.

Herbert
deke
2013-03-10 16:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery. It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder. The problems with the Z-film go
Post by mainframetech
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. And add to that some recent information about the chain of custody of the film.
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
I know many CTs don't want to consider alteration because they feel that the Z film is the best evidence for conspiracy and they don't want to give it up as tainted evidence. I understand that; I've been there myself. Here's the good news about that - if the film was altered, that in itself is strong evidence of conspiracy.
Walt
2013-03-11 02:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery.  It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder.  The problems with the Z-film go
Post by mainframetech
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. And add to that some recent information about the chain of custody of the film.http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
I know many CTs don't want to consider alteration because they feel that the Z film is the best evidence for conspiracy and they don't want to give it up as tainted evidence. I understand that; I've been there myself. Here's the good news about that - if the film was altered, that in itself is strong evidence of conspiracy.
Deke...... You're tackling a nasty foe...... consisting of both Lner's
and CT's who both have their own agenda for accepting the Z film. Good
Luck...... Personally, I'm solidly on your team, and the Altgens photo
provides mathmatically verifiable proof that the Z film is a fraud. I
haven't wasted much time viewing the Z film and debating what the FBI
created fake shows. Anybody with an ounce of brains can sift through the
story about how we came to have the extant Z film and discern that the
reason we have that film is because the FBI wanted us to have that
film.....and that FACT speaks volumes........
deke
2013-03-11 18:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walt
Post by mainframetech
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery.  It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder.  The problems with the Z-film go
Post by mainframetech
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. And add to that some recent information about the chain of custody of the film.http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
I know many CTs don't want to consider alteration because they feel that the Z film is the best evidence for conspiracy and they don't want to give it up as tainted evidence. I understand that; I've been there myself. Here's the good news about that - if the film was altered, that in itself is strong evidence of conspiracy.
Deke...... You're tackling a nasty foe...... consisting of both Lner's
and CT's who both have their own agenda for accepting the Z film. Good
Luck......
I think we all have our own theories and agendas. The big question is are
we willing to reconsider them when new information like this becomes
available?
mainframetech
2013-03-11 23:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Post by mainframetech
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery.  It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder.  The problems with the Z-film go
Post by mainframetech
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. And add to that some recent information about the chain of custody of the film.http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
I know many CTs don't want to consider alteration because they feel that the Z film is the best evidence for conspiracy and they don't want to give it up as tainted evidence. I understand that; I've been there myself. Here's the good news about that - if the film was altered, that in itself is strong evidence of conspiracy.
Deke...... You're tackling a nasty foe......  consisting of both Lner's
and CT's who both have their own agenda for accepting the Z film.  Good
Luck......
I think we all have our own theories and agendas. The big question is are
we willing to reconsider them when new information like this becomes
available?
Deke,

You've hit upon a very cogent point for this forum. Many here have
argued and debated about the evidence and their personal beliefs as to the
murder, and they are so locked into their positions that if they sat on
dynamite, it wouldn't budge them from their seat. They will ignore large
numbers of witnesses and say they are all lying or mistaken rather than
admit to the statements they make. Logic and similar common sense go out
the window too.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-12 01:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Post by Walt
Post by mainframetech
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery. It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder. The problems with the Z-film go
Post by mainframetech
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. And add to that some recent information about the chain of custody of the film.http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
I know many CTs don't want to consider alteration because they feel that the Z film is the best evidence for conspiracy and they don't want to give it up as tainted evidence. I understand that; I've been there myself. Here's the good news about that - if the film was altered, that in itself is strong evidence of conspiracy.
Deke...... You're tackling a nasty foe...... consisting of both Lner's
and CT's who both have their own agenda for accepting the Z film. Good
Luck......
I think we all have our own theories and agendas. The big question is are
we willing to reconsider them when new information like this becomes
available?
You have no new information.
mainframetech
2013-03-12 17:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by mainframetech
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery.  It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder.  The problems with the Z-film go
Post by mainframetech
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. And add to that some recent information about the chain of custody of the film.http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
I know many CTs don't want to consider alteration because they feel that the Z film is the best evidence for conspiracy and they don't want to give it up as tainted evidence. I understand that; I've been there myself. Here's the good news about that - if the film was altered, that in itself is strong evidence of conspiracy.
Deke...... You're tackling a nasty foe......  consisting of both Lner's
and CT's who both have their own agenda for accepting the Z film.  Good
Luck......
I think we all have our own theories and agendas. The big question is are
we willing to reconsider them when new information like this becomes
available?
You have no new information.
And you ignore old information put together logically that proves
something. Like the many Parkland and Bethesda staffers and others
that saw a large wound at the BOH of JFK. A preponderance of
witnesses, yet you see nothing but a tiny bullet hole.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-13 01:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by Walt
Post by mainframetech
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery. It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder. The problems with the Z-film go
Post by mainframetech
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. And add to that some recent information about the chain of custody of the film.http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
I know many CTs don't want to consider alteration because they feel that the Z film is the best evidence for conspiracy and they don't want to give it up as tainted evidence. I understand that; I've been there myself. Here's the good news about that - if the film was altered, that in itself is strong evidence of conspiracy.
Deke...... You're tackling a nasty foe...... consisting of both Lner's
and CT's who both have their own agenda for accepting the Z film. Good
Luck......
I think we all have our own theories and agendas. The big question is are
we willing to reconsider them when new information like this becomes
available?
You have no new information.
And you ignore old information put together logically that proves
something. Like the many Parkland and Bethesda staffers and others
that saw a large wound at the BOH of JFK. A preponderance of
witnesses, yet you see nothing but a tiny bullet hole.
Chris
Wrong as usual. I don't see ANY hole.
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-11 02:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Post by mainframetech
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery. It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder. The problems with the Z-film go
Post by mainframetech
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. And add to that some recent information about the chain of custody of the film.
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
I know many CTs don't want to consider alteration because they feel that the Z film is the best evidence for conspiracy and they don't want to give it up as tainted evidence. I understand that; I've been there myself. Here's the good news about that - if the film was altered, that in itself is strong evidence of conspiracy.
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.

There are some people with weak minds who think they can prove conspiracy
simply by proving cover-up. Because they are too lazy to look for the
evidence of conspiracy.
deke
2013-03-11 18:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
mainframetech
2013-03-11 23:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
Nope. The thing to do is pay careful atention to Horne, who is a
careful historian of the evidence. He followed David Lifton at being
organized and putting many different lines of evidence togheter and
seeing the outstanding errors in thinking in many of the paths.
Post by deke
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
Bravo!

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-12 04:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
Nope. The thing to do is pay careful atention to Horne, who is a
careful historian of the evidence. He followed David Lifton at being
organized and putting many different lines of evidence togheter and
seeing the outstanding errors in thinking in many of the paths.
He is not a historian. He is an alterationist.
Post by mainframetech
Post by deke
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
Bravo!
Chris
mainframetech
2013-03-12 17:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
    Nope.  The thing to do is pay careful atention to Horne, who is a
careful historian of the evidence.  He followed David Lifton at being
organized and putting many different lines of evidence togheter and
seeing the outstanding errors in thinking in many of the paths.
He is not a historian. He is an alterationist.
Just a difference in choice of description. Horne has done much
more in compiling evidence than many other would-be 'solvers' of the
case.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
    Bravo!
Chris
Peter Fokes
2013-03-18 01:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
    Nope.  The thing to do is pay careful atention to Horne, who is a
careful historian of the evidence.  He followed David Lifton at being
organized and putting many different lines of evidence togheter and
seeing the outstanding errors in thinking in many of the paths.
He is not a historian. He is an alterationist.
Just a difference in choice of description. Horne has done much
more in compiling evidence than many other would-be 'solvers' of the
case.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
    Bravo!
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-12 01:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
So what? Brugnioni does not vouch for Horne. I consider it prudent to
dismiss out of hand all alterationists.
mainframetech
2013-03-12 17:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
So what? Brugnioni does not vouch for Horne. I consider it prudent to
dismiss out of hand all alterationists.
I rather suspected you were living by such rules. How in the world
can you be a researcher and simply ignore whole segments of evidence
like that? If a case is based on false images that are proved to be
such, how can you learn anything if you ignore segments of
information? People lie, and people make false evidence for others,
and it will usually be discovered sooner or later. How can you follow
the story if you pretend that some of it doesn't exist for you?

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-13 01:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
So what? Brugnioni does not vouch for Horne. I consider it prudent to
dismiss out of hand all alterationists.
I rather suspected you were living by such rules. How in the world
can you be a researcher and simply ignore whole segments of evidence
I don't ignore anything. But I don't have to believe something just
because someone said it.
Post by mainframetech
like that? If a case is based on false images that are proved to be
such, how can you learn anything if you ignore segments of
information? People lie, and people make false evidence for others,
and it will usually be discovered sooner or later. How can you follow
the story if you pretend that some of it doesn't exist for you?
You are not qualified to determine what is a false image.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
mainframetech
2013-03-13 20:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
So what? Brugnioni does not vouch for Horne. I consider it prudent to
dismiss out of hand all alterationists.
    I rather suspected you were living by such rules.  How in the world
can you be a researcher and simply ignore whole segments of evidence
I don't ignore anything. But I don't have to believe something just
because someone said it.
You've just said "I consider it prudent to dismiss out of hand all
alterationists." That's ignoring a segment of information that may
carry the answer needed. Not smart for a researcher to do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
like that?  If a case is based on false images that are proved to be
such, how can you learn anything if you ignore segments of
information?  People lie, and people make false evidence for others,
and it will usually be discovered sooner or later.  How can you follow
the story if you pretend that some of it doesn't exist for you?
You are not qualified to determine what is a false image.
You're so busy telling everyone else that they're not qualified for
this and for that (implying that YOU are), that you forget how limited
you've made yourself with all your rules of ignoring this and ignoring
that, and junk this and nonsense that. You've unqualified yourself.
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-14 01:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
So what? Brugnioni does not vouch for Horne. I consider it prudent to
dismiss out of hand all alterationists.
I rather suspected you were living by such rules. How in the world
can you be a researcher and simply ignore whole segments of evidence
I don't ignore anything. But I don't have to believe something just
because someone said it.
You've just said "I consider it prudent to dismiss out of hand all
alterationists." That's ignoring a segment of information that may
carry the answer needed. Not smart for a researcher to do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
like that? If a case is based on false images that are proved to be
such, how can you learn anything if you ignore segments of
information? People lie, and people make false evidence for others,
and it will usually be discovered sooner or later. How can you follow
the story if you pretend that some of it doesn't exist for you?
You are not qualified to determine what is a false image.
You're so busy telling everyone else that they're not qualified for
this and for that (implying that YOU are), that you forget how limited
you've made yourself with all your rules of ignoring this and ignoring
that, and junk this and nonsense that. You've unqualified yourself.
I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic. I was the
only one to challenge the NAS panel. I was one of the first to criticize
the HSCA even though I lobbied for its formation. I have worked with most
major researchers. I found the error on the HSCA. And much more. Read my
articles.
mainframetech
2013-03-14 15:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
So what? Brugnioni does not vouch for Horne. I consider it prudent to
dismiss out of hand all alterationists.
     I rather suspected you were living by such rules.  How in the world
can you be a researcher and simply ignore whole segments of evidence
I don't ignore anything. But I don't have to believe something just
because someone said it.
   You've just said "I consider it prudent to dismiss out of hand all
alterationists."  That's ignoring a segment of information that may
carry the answer needed.  Not smart for a researcher to do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
like that?  If a case is based on false images that are proved to be
such, how can you learn anything if you ignore segments of
information?  People lie, and people make false evidence for others,
and it will usually be discovered sooner or later.  How can you follow
the story if you pretend that some of it doesn't exist for you?
You are not qualified to determine what is a false image.
   You're so busy telling everyone else that they're not qualified for
this and for that (implying that YOU are), that you forget how limited
you've made yourself with all your rules of ignoring this and ignoring
that, and junk this and nonsense that.  You've unqualified yourself.
I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic. I was the
only one to challenge the NAS panel. I was one of the first to criticize
the HSCA even though I lobbied for its formation. I have worked with most
major researchers. I found the error on the HSCA. And much more. Read my
articles.
Now you've convinced yourself that you've proved the Z-film was
legitimate when it was not. And when it is proved over again to be
altered, as it has already been, what will you say then?

Here's a video showing just some of the errors in the faking of the
Z-film. Use your skills and pick it apart.
http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA

Chris
Walt
2013-03-14 22:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
So what? Brugnioni does not vouch for Horne. I consider it prudent to
dismiss out of hand all alterationists.
     I rather suspected you were living by such rules.  How in the world
can you be a researcher and simply ignore whole segments of evidence
I don't ignore anything. But I don't have to believe something just
because someone said it.
   You've just said "I consider it prudent to dismiss out of hand all
alterationists."  That's ignoring a segment of information that may
carry the answer needed.  Not smart for a researcher to do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
like that?  If a case is based on false images that are proved to be
such, how can you learn anything if you ignore segments of
information?  People lie, and people make false evidence for others,
and it will usually be discovered sooner or later.  How can you follow
the story if you pretend that some of it doesn't exist for you?
You are not qualified to determine what is a false image.
   You're so busy telling everyone else that they're not qualified for
this and for that (implying that YOU are), that you forget how limited
you've made yourself with all your rules of ignoring this and ignoring
that, and junk this and nonsense that.  You've unqualified yourself.
I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic. I was the
only one to challenge the NAS panel. I was one of the first to criticize
the HSCA even though I lobbied for its formation. I have worked with most
major researchers. I found the error on the HSCA. And much more. Read my
articles.
   Now you've convinced yourself that you've proved the Z-film was
legitimate when it was not.  And when it is proved over again to be
altered, as it has already been, what will you say then?
   Here's a video showing just some of the errors in the faking of the
Z-film.  Use your skills and pick it http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Chris
Thanks for the link to very interesting information, Chris. Whoever put
the video together deserves a huge "ATTA BOY" ..... because obviously it
took a lot of time money and effort , to produce that video.
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-15 02:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walt
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
So what? Brugnioni does not vouch for Horne. I consider it prudent to
dismiss out of hand all alterationists.
I rather suspected you were living by such rules. How in the world
can you be a researcher and simply ignore whole segments of evidence
I don't ignore anything. But I don't have to believe something just
because someone said it.
You've just said "I consider it prudent to dismiss out of hand all
alterationists." That's ignoring a segment of information that may
carry the answer needed. Not smart for a researcher to do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
like that? If a case is based on false images that are proved to be
such, how can you learn anything if you ignore segments of
information? People lie, and people make false evidence for others,
and it will usually be discovered sooner or later. How can you follow
the story if you pretend that some of it doesn't exist for you?
You are not qualified to determine what is a false image.
You're so busy telling everyone else that they're not qualified for
this and for that (implying that YOU are), that you forget how limited
you've made yourself with all your rules of ignoring this and ignoring
that, and junk this and nonsense that. You've unqualified yourself.
I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic. I was the
only one to challenge the NAS panel. I was one of the first to criticize
the HSCA even though I lobbied for its formation. I have worked with most
major researchers. I found the error on the HSCA. And much more. Read my
articles.
Now you've convinced yourself that you've proved the Z-film was
legitimate when it was not. And when it is proved over again to be
altered, as it has already been, what will you say then?
Here's a video showing just some of the errors in the faking of the
Z-film. Use your skills and pick it http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Chris
Thanks for the link to very interesting information, Chris. Whoever put
the video together deserves a huge "ATTA BOY" ..... because obviously it
took a lot of time money and effort , to produce that video.
Pure junk.
mainframetech
2013-03-16 15:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
So what? Brugnioni does not vouch for Horne. I consider it prudent to
dismiss out of hand all alterationists.
      I rather suspected you were living by such rules.  How in the world
can you be a researcher and simply ignore whole segments of evidence
I don't ignore anything. But I don't have to believe something just
because someone said it.
    You've just said "I consider it prudent to dismiss out of hand all
alterationists."  That's ignoring a segment of information that may
carry the answer needed.  Not smart for a researcher to do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
like that?  If a case is based on false images that are proved to be
such, how can you learn anything if you ignore segments of
information?  People lie, and people make false evidence for others,
and it will usually be discovered sooner or later.  How can you follow
the story if you pretend that some of it doesn't exist for you?
You are not qualified to determine what is a false image.
    You're so busy telling everyone else that they're not qualified for
this and for that (implying that YOU are), that you forget how limited
you've made yourself with all your rules of ignoring this and ignoring
that, and junk this and nonsense that.  You've unqualified yourself.
I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic. I was the
only one to challenge the NAS panel. I was one of the first to criticize
the HSCA even though I lobbied for its formation. I have worked with most
major researchers. I found the error on the HSCA. And much more. Read my
articles.
    Now you've convinced yourself that you've proved the Z-film was
legitimate when it was not.  And when it is proved over again to be
altered, as it has already been, what will you say then?
    Here's a video showing just some of the errors in the faking of the
Z-film.  Use your skills and pick it http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Chris
Thanks for the link to very interesting information, Chris.  Whoever put
the video together deserves a huge "ATTA BOY" .....  because obviously it
took a lot of time money and effort , to produce that video.
Pure junk.
Shucks. I was hoping you would use your skills to pick apart the video,
but instead you fell back to "pure junk", one of your usual useless
statements that give NO information, and offer NO proof of anything, and
really leave the evidence in good shape right there in front of you and
us. So will I assume that you have no skill to debunk the video, or have
you decided to accept it as valid, or what?

So we are left with a video that suggests ways the Z-film may have been
'messed with' to give impressions desired for general public consumption.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-17 02:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Walt
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
This is ironic. I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. The the WC defenders think I have the weirdest conspiracy
theories. The Zapruder film proves the WC wrong and proves conspiracy.
Ignore Horne. He is an alterationist.
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Doug Horne out of hand. He was
with the ARRB, sort of a "man on the inside." There are also others who
corroborate his theory. The name of one of them, Dino Brugioni, raised my
eyebrows when I ran across it in Horne's paper. I saw him interviewed a
while back in a documentary about the Cuban missile crisis. He was one of
the people who found the missiles in the U2 photos.
So what? Brugnioni does not vouch for Horne. I consider it prudent to
dismiss out of hand all alterationists.
I rather suspected you were living by such rules. How in the world
can you be a researcher and simply ignore whole segments of evidence
I don't ignore anything. But I don't have to believe something just
because someone said it.
You've just said "I consider it prudent to dismiss out of hand all
alterationists." That's ignoring a segment of information that may
carry the answer needed. Not smart for a researcher to do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
like that? If a case is based on false images that are proved to be
such, how can you learn anything if you ignore segments of
information? People lie, and people make false evidence for others,
and it will usually be discovered sooner or later. How can you follow
the story if you pretend that some of it doesn't exist for you?
You are not qualified to determine what is a false image.
You're so busy telling everyone else that they're not qualified for
this and for that (implying that YOU are), that you forget how limited
you've made yourself with all your rules of ignoring this and ignoring
that, and junk this and nonsense that. You've unqualified yourself.
I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic. I was the
only one to challenge the NAS panel. I was one of the first to criticize
the HSCA even though I lobbied for its formation. I have worked with most
major researchers. I found the error on the HSCA. And much more. Read my
articles.
Now you've convinced yourself that you've proved the Z-film was
legitimate when it was not. And when it is proved over again to be
altered, as it has already been, what will you say then?
Here's a video showing just some of the errors in the faking of the
Z-film. Use your skills and pick it http://youtu.be/5Am4qdl9PTA
Chris
Thanks for the link to very interesting information, Chris. Whoever put
the video together deserves a huge "ATTA BOY" ..... because obviously it
took a lot of time money and effort , to produce that video.
Pure junk.
Shucks. I was hoping you would use your skills to pick apart the video,
but instead you fell back to "pure junk", one of your usual useless
statements that give NO information, and offer NO proof of anything, and
really leave the evidence in good shape right there in front of you and
us. So will I assume that you have no skill to debunk the video, or have
you decided to accept it as valid, or what?
So we are left with a video that suggests ways the Z-film may have been
'messed with' to give impressions desired for general public consumption.
Chris
I've been too busy. I thought I would be snowed in all last weekend, but
it warmed up and melted the snow.
Brianm
2013-03-11 02:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
Post by mainframetech
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery. It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder. The problems with the Z-film go
Post by mainframetech
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. And add to that some recent information about the chain of custody of the film.
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
I know many CTs don't want to consider alteration because they feel that the Z film is the best evidence for conspiracy and they >don't want to give it up as tainted evidence. I understand that; I've been there myself. Here's the good news about that - if the >film was altered, that in itself is strong evidence of conspiracy.
The problem with alteration of Z-film is you then have to answer why it
agrees with the Nix AND Muchmore films. Your standard of proof is 3X
higher. I have yet to hear good arguments for

1. questionable chain of possession on either of THOSE films
or
2. 'artifacts' in either of those indicating alteration

Regardless, all the films were VERY low quality, so any arguments of
'artifacts' indicating 'alteration' carry low weight, IMO.
mainframetech
2013-03-11 02:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
The video is very useful in getting people to think in the right terms
for fakery.  It shows that it could be done and may have been done in one
of the important films of the murder.  The problems with the Z-film go
Post by mainframetech
past this video and are seen elsewhere too.
Chris
Yes. And add to that some recent information about the chain of custody of the film.http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
I know many CTs don't want to consider alteration because they feel that the Z film is the best evidence for conspiracy and they don't want to give it up as tainted evidence. I understand that; I've been there myself. Here's the good news about that - if the film was altered, that in itself is strong evidence of conspiracy.
Very true. And there are so many points at which common sense
shows there was a conspiracy that even without the Z-film there would
be no doubt.
l***@gmail.com
2013-03-16 02:34:39 UTC
Permalink
I ran across this video recently. If you go to the five minute point, it shows Zapruder's camera panning past a lamp post. It seems strange that the far background doesn't seem to move at all with respect to the lamp post.
I'm wondering if the lamp post is still there. If it is, it would be
worthwhile to try to duplicate that portion of the Z film.

I suspect that video has been cut and manipulated more than Joan Rivers'
face..i would not contend it has a lick of value, unless one can prove it
has not been doctored!! Mossad and the cIA took Kennedy out...read "FINAL
JUDGEMENT" for the truth...just like they did 9-11...nothing has changed
since Nov '63
Anthony Marsh
2013-03-18 13:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by deke
I ran across this video recently. If you go to the five minute point, it
shows Zapruder's camera panning past a lamp post. It seems strange that
the far background doesn't seem to move at all with respect to the lamp
post. I'm wondering if the lamp post is still there. If it is, it would be
worthwhile to try to duplicate that portion of the Z film.
Here are the major issues raised in his video:


The spectators not moving. He focuses only on two of the spectators on
the south infield grass. Because they are not looking at the limousine
he theorizes that the limousine was actually farther back and later
footage was inserted on top of earlier backgrounds.
His explanation is that the film is a composite. That is physically
impossible. Then the ghost images in the intersprocket hole area would
not match up with the background images.
He fails to notice other people who were looking at the limousine and
that in earlier frames and photos some people were not looking at the
limousine but behind it, maybe at another vehicle or towards the sound
of the shots from the TSBD like Rosemary Willis did.

The lack of blur in some frames when it appears that a spectator's legs
are together. In fact the legs are close together, but the blur only
make is appear that they are together. A composite would not explain the
blurs and the blurs in the sprocket hole area are in sync one frame
before or after the main image.


1. The pasted freeway sign.

Costella makes a claim that the freeway sign has been fabricated. But
other films and photos show the sign clearly.
He claims that Mary Moorman is standing on the grass when she was
supposed to be in the street when taking her photograph. But she herself
said she stepped back when she saw the cycles coming close.
And several recreations confirm the position of the camera at the moment
she took the photo was a couple of feet back from the curb.

2. The large bystanders.

He claims the bystanders appear too large. He obviously does not
realize that this is what a telephoto lens is designed to do.

3. The painted shadows.

He claims that the shadows of the bystanders were painted in because
they are not blurred when the legs are either together or apart.
They only appear together when the frame is blurred. When the frame is
not blurred we can see the light grass between their legs. The effect is
also caused by the fact that two legs far apart cast shadows touching
each other when we view it from an angle, but when viewing the bodies we
can see the bright grass between their legs.

4. The cut-out lamp.
He complains that the lamp post does not move against the background. It
should not. He says that the bottom left part of the lamp post looks
strange, like a cut-out. What he doesn't realize that he is seeing is
the back of the NO STANDING sign affixed to the lamp post.

5. The lurching passengers.
He notices the limousine slowing down and claims this is unnatural and
the limo does not show this. I have written about this often. I and
others have noticed that the existing film shows that the limousine does
slow down, but it does not stop. That was an old myth. Other films show
that it suddenly slowed down.
"The second of these brakes seems to be strong enough to throw Connally
and his wife completely to the floor of the car and the driver and
front passenger forward as well."
There was not enough room in front of the jump seats for the Connallys
to be thrown to the floor.

6. The braking motorcycle.
He claims that the motorcycle catches up with the limousine therefore
proving that the driver brought the limousine to a complete stop. Yes,
the limousine slowed down and the cycle caught up with it, but he
overlooks a clue in the those frames. Clint Hill is seen running up the
limo and barely climbing onto the back of the limousine and almost
falling off. He could not have done that if the limousine had not slowed
down and if the limousine had actually stopped he would not have tripped
and nearly fallen off.

I have addressed these issues many times before in articles on my Web
site about Assassination Science. They are spawned by a small cult of
alterationists who make up a new theory every week as their old theories
get shot down.
Loading...