[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:One way to 'authenticate' the film is quite simple - if it matches what eyewitnesses saw.

Does that include the witness who thought JFK stood up and the one who saw a fluffy white dog in the back seat...?

Ben Holmes Wrote:Simple... logical... and requires no citation for any honest person.

But if the film does NOT match up with what eyewitnesses saw, then this is evidence for alteration.

Absolute tripe. There were many witnesses who did not think the limo stopped...are you ignoring them...?

Ben Holmes Wrote:Simply stating that the film shows a limo slowdown will NOT corroborate the eyewitnesses... there's that minor problem of believability here... dozens of witnesses seeing the limo for the first time were able to note OBVIOUSLY ENOUGH a slowdown of the limo.

Nonsense. If the limo had stopped it would be apparent in the Nix and Z films. It is not. People perceived the limo stopped when in fact it slowed down.

Ben Holmes Wrote:You CANNOT give an example of such a dichotomy between what a film captures, and what people report, as you're trying to pass off in this case.

Your point cannot be established unless you show the films have been altered and Mr Zavada, who knows I would think, a lot more about film alteration than you Ben, states the Zapruder film is an in camera original which means there was no limo stop. Period.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...d/3672031/