Montalban, Former Chrysler Pitchman, Dies At 88

Huh? We're lucky Zapruder was there filming, but other than that are
you talking about anything specific? The main point we can see in the
wikipedia entry is that there were lots of copies, and they were used
in the official reports.

Footage from when?

 

Geebus. read what it took to get it out so people could see it instead
of a few frames.

11-sept-2001. you know, of all the tapes they took and all the security
cameras of the HQ of the world's most powerful military only a few
frames have been released.

national security you know!

 

Assume I'm stupid. Tell me what you're alluding to. I see things
like

In 1967, Life magazine hired a New Jersey film lab, Manhattan
Effects, to make a 16 mm film copy of the original Zapruder
film. Pleased with the results, they asked for a 35 mm
internegative to be made. Mo Weitzman made several internegatives
in 1968, giving the best to Life and retaining the test
copies. Weitzman set up his own optical house and motion picture
postproduction facility later that year. Employee and
assassination buff Robert Groden, hired in 1969, used one of
Weitzman's copies and an optical printer to make versions of the
Zapruder film using close-ups and minimizing the camera's
shakiness.

which isn't my idea of anybody trying to cover anything up.

Oddly enough, in real life (as opposed to movies) cameras are set
looking at things where threats are expected, not randomly off onto
the grounds.

Yes, you've established you're a kook.

 

6 years later, someone under contract makes copies for the company which
remain unseen. Stop cherry picking in your effort to kookify. I'm not
going to cut and paste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film just
to play this silly game of yours.

"Prior to the 1969 trial of New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw for
conspiracy in connection with the assassination, a copy of the film
several generations from the original was subpoenaed from Time Inc. in
1967 by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for use at Shaw's
grand jury hearing. Garrison unsuccessfully subpoenaed the original film
in 1968. The courtroom showings of Garrison's copy in 1969 were the
first time it had been shown in public as a film."

It wasn't shown to the public at large until early 1975 when it aired
on TV, 11+ years after the event. Yeah, completely out and the open fast
responding, government and it's licensed media getting the information
out to the people.

Why does the government still keep JFK assassination material secret to
this day? The information is to be disclosed to the public in 2029 or
so as I recall. What hasn't gotten lost or destroyed that is.

But no, there's no 'memory hole'... no secrecy, US government is
transparent and honest.... and the media is a responsive watchdog of the
government even though it has to remain in good favor to have access and
retain its licensing.

Hell only knows what happens to the stuff the public doesn't get to know
even exists.

And yet the footage is secret under national security. If it shows
nothing why is it secret?

because heaven forbid I see the US federal government and most state
governments as governments with the motivations of governments instead
of being magically different and more honest because they're 'american'.

Thanks for proving my point. Mere doubt of our dear leaders total and
complete honesty, a lack of faith, makes one a kook.

It's pretty clear to me you don't want your faith disturbed. so I'm done
with this. it's OT anyway.

 

I've driven an 80 with that engine. The 225 HP was under 100 at that
point and you could only drive the car downhill. <G>

However, my 79 New Yorker with 360 was very pleasurable to drive.

 

LOL.

What about a two seats roadster with a six speed, manual, gearbox?

My car:
http://picasaweb.google.it/Diotonante/Kibo#5209629014598323890

^^;

--
Yatta!,

Kosh : If you go to Z'ha'dum, you will die.
Sheridan : Then I die. But I will not go down easily, and I will not go
down alone.

 

Too true. Chrysler let the slant-6 die on the vine knowing that it was
too long to fit in planned vehicles- it never got any of the combustion
chamber and cam profile upgrades or roller cam that the 318 and 360 got
to keep them viable, it just got weighed down with more and more add-on
emission controls rather than attacking emissions at the source which is
a much better way to go. There was an 83 slant-6 Diplomat in my family
at one time- the last year the slant ever went into a production
passenger car. It was truly a sad thing, because we also had a nearly
identical car with a 318 which had far more power and also got about 5
mpg better economy. The slant-6 probably peaked in about 76 lor 77 with
the 2-bbl "Super Six" version... then rapidly tanked over the next 4 years.

 

No, I'm definitely thinking Mk VIII. It was the first to get the
32-valve version of the Modular v8, which at the time looked as good or
better than the Cadillac Northstar (at least on paper). It stayed in
production through 1998, getting one re-style along the way. They kinda
let it be a "niche" vehicle and didn't shut it down when it failed to
sell in large numbers. That's one thing that I liked about it.


Here is a picture showing both style iterations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_VIII.JPG

Now that we're in danger of going completely off-topic for the Chrysler
group, I'll add that one reason the 300M sold so well, IMO, is that it
was a more affordable version of the same idea as the Mk VIII. Too bad
it was a front-drive. One of the things I distinctly remember about the
MkVIII is that it beat the Northstar-powered Seville STS/Eldorado in all
the performance tests in 1993, despite having about 15 horsepower less.
The benefit of rear-drive and more balanced handling. Why do I remember?
Because in 1993 I was car-shopping, and the Seville STS and MK VIII were
two cars I looked at and test-drove, but wifey ruled out. The Seville
for expense (plus I had already pretty much eliminated it just for being
a GM product), and the MkVIII because it wasn't a family car and for
expense. Given that our final pick (the 93 Vision) cost a lot less and
did give almost 260k miles of service, I think we did OK ;-)

 

I can think of a whole bunch of things that it *might* show, all
completely unrelated to events of 9/11/01, that still shouldn't be released.

Come on, THINK! Just because you get kicked in the ass there's no reason
to drop your pants voluntarily.

 

Damn. I was hoping to see a Viper.

 

Of course Mk's were always intended as niche vehicles...

Never knew you'd even consider a Brand F or G

 

What might security footage from nearby businesses show that couldn't be
seen by visiting said businesses?

 

Maybe next time Steve. Maybe when gas goes cheaper.

--
Yatta!,

Aeryn: Fun? How am I to have fun?
John: Well I don't know how you're supposed to have fun - but this is
fun! This is "Top Gun"! This is the need for speed - admit it you like
this stuff.
Aeryn: I have no need for speed.

 

Brands T and maybe H fall in the "never" category. I've owned Fs and
married into a ownership of a G before.... ;-/

 

Probably nothing. But then maybe something. And besides, why make it
easier for the bad guys than having to go visit that spot?

 

The actual design of long front short cargo/passenger space goes way back.
Check out Duesenbers, Auburns and Cords.

SWIGGY

 

Aside from the fact that they are aesthetically appealing, there was a
good reason for this - those vehicles tended to have large inline type
engines. Those take up a lot of real estate forward of the firewall.

nate