I know he's not here right now, but I'm just cleaning up after him:
Begging the question. Abraham Zapruder, who filmed the assassination and who owned the rights to his personal property (the Zapruder film showing the assassination) sold the print rights to LIFE Magazine, but not the film rights. It could NOT be shown as a film.
Since both you and Zapruder has been caught lying x times before, I think I have to ask you to provide a source for this.
Have any?
My source is the book "The Zapruder Film" by David R. Wrone (conspiracy theorist)
On page 34 he says this is the contract executed between LIFE Magazine's representative Richard Stolley and Zapruder.
== QUOTE ==
Nov. 23, 1963
In consideration of the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.), I grant LIFE Magazine exclusive world wide print media rights to my original 8 mm color film which shows the shooting of President Kennedy in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. I retain all motion picture rights, but agree not to release the film for motion picture, television, newsreel, etc., use until Friday, Nov. 29, 1963. You agree to return to me the original print of that film, and I will then supply you with a copy print.
Abraham Zapruder
Agreed to:
Richard B. Stolley
LIFE Magazine
Witnesses
[Lillian Roger, Erwin Schwartz]
== UNQUOTE ==
Aside from that, you claim myself and Zapruder have "been caught lying x times before" but you offer no evidence for those claims. Please provide the evidence of myself and Zapruder lying when you return (you won't, because I don't).
Selling the best evidence to the highest bidder seem to be a fine and proud tradition in the US.
Gee, I would think the rifle used in the assassination, the shells, the two large fragments, and the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland Hospital were the best evidence. All of those were in the government's hands. But that's a problem for you too, isn't it? Because you assert the government was behind the murder, so any evidence in the government's hands can be dismissed because of the possibility of tampering. Right?
- The only film that covers the entirety of the assassination of the 35th president.
And that is likewise dismissed because it remained in private hands and wasn't seen as a film on 11/22/63 by the people of the U.S.? Is that your complaint? Were you even born on 11/22/63? Or by 1975, when the film was shown on U.S. network television? If not, what exactly is your complaint? You weren't harmed in any way by the failure of it to be broadcast.
- All the steel on ground zero before a forensic investigation was allowed on the premises. You should feel really proud, Hank. It’s a dandy tradition.
It's called private property rights, and yes, I'm proud this country can't just seize anything it wants without just recompense.
No, they were very modest. 150 000 dollars from LIFE who sold it back after Riveras outing of the content for 1 dollar. After that, the JFK Records Act, and another 16 000 000 dollars! from the taxpayers.
LIFE sold it back because it had become an albatross and they wanted to be rid of the complaints directed at them. Again, they never had the film rights, only the print rights, so they couldn't satisfy the critics who wanted to see it as a film without breaking the contract. So they sold the print rights back solely to wash their hands of it. The government was empowered by the ARRB act to take possession of all JFK records and store them in the archives. The debate then followed over whether the film was a record covered under the act and if they seized it, what would be just recompense. Since the film is one of a kind and there is no other like it, and as you argue, it's the best evidence in the assassination, the price of $16m was agreed upon as compensation for that unique historical artifact. Since you're not a U.S. citizen and aren't harmed in any fashion by the purchase of the film by the government with U.S. taxpayer dollars, what's your underlying complaint and your real reason for complaining here?
If you want to talk about the Geraldo Rivera program, here's a link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=443&v=nxCH1yhGG3Q
Please go to 7:15 in the above and listen as Robert Groden (conspiracy theorist) falsely claims that 80% of the witnesses named the knoll as the source of the shots. Total bunk. And we all know it. Even you know it. You couldn't get to a majority of the witnesses even citing your conspiracy sources.
How’s that for making a buck NOT being a ”conspiracy theorist”, Hank? Where is the real money?
It's in being a shill for the government. Back in the early 1980s - and I pointed this out before - I signed a million dollar contract to defend the lies of the Warren Commission. But I should have read the contract more closely. It promised me a dollar a year for a million years. You just can't trust the CIA.
I learned my lesson. Now I post fake news on Facebook for Putin. It pays better. You?
"Three shots were heard and the President fell forward, bleeding from the head. . ." (Warren Report p. 539.)
The only known source for this is the Dan Rather statement, making him a ’made man’ in US Gangster State.
Your only problem is that Humes' autopsy report which you quote from is from the weekend of the assassination (dated 11/24/63), and Rather's reporting of the film didn't happen until the next day, Monday, 11/25/63.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiSoxFHyjGY
Humes reporting didn't come from Rather, it clearly came from newspapers whose reporting came from witnesses.
No evidence from you, just false assertions.
Maybe because they were in the newspaper business as a member of the fourth estate? Heard of that? Keeping an eye on the people in power, reporting corruption, political crimes and abuses of the public trust?
Sounds about right.
Hank
