26-08-2013, 03:53 PM
Tracy Riddle Wrote:First of all, David, I'm a guy. Second, insinuating that people are closet lone-nutters because they don't agree with you should be unacceptable here. I guess Harold Weisberg was a lone-nutter too, because he didn't accept the alteration arguments.
Was Zapruder himself part of this plot, since he vouched for the authenticity of the film at the Shaw trial?
well I apologize for that gender mixup there Tracy, one can't be to sure of much when dealing with issues such as a faked Zapruder film. Kinda why I like to know folks background before I engage in the subject... Don't want to spend to much time engaging .john lone nut's with an agenda--waste of time!
Anyway, quite frankly, most lone nuts and other researchers agree with me, at first. IF (can you see those two letters there Tracy?) the Zapruder film is altered, then yes, there was the where-with-all, equipment, talent (meaning artists and optical film printing tech's), film post production-direction and TIME to alter the in-camera original Zapruder film. Do you agree or disagree, Tracy? If not, your professional qualifications thus supporting your dis-agreement then your reasons for disagreement, please. Simple as that. And please, have some professional editing suite/film lab qualifications. Otherwise, we are done here.
And forget Harold Weisberg Tracy its me you're jawing misdirection and disinfo to here. So, focus your comments on pre March 1964 Zapruder film son.
Zapruder the man is not the issue here. In case YOU forgot, it's his and LIFE Magazine's film and its possible alteration, during a very, VERY specific time period (pre March 1964) we're talking about. So, nice try, but no banana... As far as closet lone nutters? You'll notice I have a way of sniffing them out...