David G. Healy Posted August 27, 2004 Author Share Posted August 27, 2004 (edited) That is exactly right, Bill! Looking back on Mr. Healy's replies, I now wonder why he didn't just say to begin with that he had no evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. I had the impression, as I am sure others did as well, that Mr. Healy's referencing of the 'Hoax' book was his way of saying that he did support the photo and film alteration side of the coin. In the event that someone should come up with a specific observation concerning Zapruder film alteration - I will be happy to participate in the discussion. dgh01: there you are, thanks for dropping by, Bill -- we'll surely let you know! for those lurkers that haven't seen the book called HOAX check out what the non-alteration Z-film *flame* camp is so upset about. Course they do have a problem finding someone, anyone with a degree in Physics that can counter the Costella's HOAX Z-film thesis -- all they can talk about is Jack White.... tsk-tsk! David Healy Edited August 27, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 (edited) for those lurkers that haven't seen the book called HOAX check out what the non-alteration Z-film *flame* camp is so upset about. Course they do have a problem finding someone, anyone with a degree in Physics that can counter the Costella's HOAX Z-film thesis -- all they can talk about is Jack White.... tsk-tsk! Why would someone want to get a book that you have said offers no proof of Zapruder film alteration? You read the book - you've had plenty of time to digest what is said in it, yet you wrote: "when it comes to the Z-film, as stated earlier James, I can't prove the film is altered however, " I recommend that before anyone buys that book that they get it in writing that you'll reimburse them their money once they find that after reading it that they too, cannot see anything that proves the Zapruder film is altered. Mr. Costella's conclusions are so obviously in error that it doesn't take a degree in physics to see his mistakes. However, if he ever offers a conclusion that needs a degree is physics to substantiate it, then we'll approach someone with such credentials to look at it. I don't know if you have noticed this or not, but Mr. Costella has never offered anyone but himself to validate his conclusions. Nowhere have I read where Costella had his work peer reviewed which is what scientist do. Edited August 27, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 27, 2004 Author Share Posted August 27, 2004 (edited) for those lurkers that haven't seen the book called HOAX check out what the non-alteration Z-film *flame* camp is so upset about. Course they do have a problem finding someone, anyone with a degree in Physics that can counter the Costella's HOAX Z-film thesis -- all they can talk about is Jack White.... tsk-tsk! Why would someone want to get a book that you have said offers no proof of Zapruder film alteration? dgh01: step up to the plate Bill, show us what you got. Dr. Costella stated, in HOAX the film is not only altered, its a FRAUD --That's a quote guy's, read it and weep. ---------- You read the book - you've had plenty of time to digest what is said in it, yet you wrote: "when it comes to the Z-film, as stated earlier James, I can't prove the film is altered however, " I recommend that before anyone buys that book that they get it in writing that you'll reimburse them their money once they find that after reading it that they too, cannot see anything that proves the Zapruder film is altered. Mr. Costella's conclusions are so obviously in error that it doesn't take a degree in physics to see his mistakes. dgh01: this is how REAL researchers and investigators debunk a theory.... well, he obviously wrong, we can't get ANYONE of near stature to say that, you'll just have to take my word for it.... roflmfao ------------ However, if he ever offers a conclusion that needs a degree is physics to substantiate it, then we'll approach someone with such credentials to look at it. dgh01: we call this stateside "avoiding the obvious - with nonsense commentary. Your getting easier Bill and to think at one time you wanted to be competition I don't know if you have noticed this or not, but Mr. Costella has never offered anyone but himself to validate his conclusions. dgh01: should make it easier for you to find a PhD shill somewhere, lot better than the High School Grad's we been seeing the last 5 years or so. Nowhere have I read where Costella had his work peer reviewed which is what scientist do.[/b] dgh01: that's Dr. Costella to those in the peanut gallery --tap, tap, tap -- we're STILL waiting Edited August 27, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 (edited) dgh01: step up to the plate Bill, show us what you got. Dr. Costella stated, in HOAX the film is not only altered, its a FRAUD --That's a quote guy's, read it and weep. And yet after you read the book, you come on this forum and say that you have no proof the Zapruder film is a hoax. You are starting to remind me of Arlen Specter and how he referred to the President's back wound as "high back wound" one time and a "low neck wound" another time. dgh01: this is how REAL researchers and investigators debunk a theory.... well, he obviously wrong, we can't get ANYONE of near stature to say that, you'll just have to take my word for it.... roflmfao If you mean by "stature" that you are refering to someone who is nutty enough to think that rain sensors are listening devices and a cordless electric razor coming on in his night bag is some sort of CIA doing, then you may have a point. However, he can't find anyone to peer review his claims in order to validate them. Not because there aren't people who can and will do it, but rather because he has not bothered to seek any any of them out. About taking your word on something ... On one hand you say there is no proof of the Zfilm being altered and on the other hand you say Costella proved it's altered. It's this sort of double talk that keeps people from taking your word for anything. dgh01: we call this stateside "avoiding the obvious - with nonsense commentary. Your getting easier Bill and to think at one time you wanted to be competition Competition for what? I have no desire to take you peoples places as the laughing stocks of the JFK assassination research community. dgh01: should make it easier for you to find a PhD shill somewhere, lot better than the High School Grad's we been seeing the last 5 years or so. I believe Josiah Thompson has a Ph.D. But explain to me why one needs a Ph.D to point out that Costella based his observations on bad data. He talks about large windows of time for altering the Moorman photo when any 1st year researcher could have told him Moorman's photo was recorded on film within 30 minutes of the assassination. You may not be sharp enough to see this on your own, but a Ph.D doesn't help if you don't have a profound knowledge of the subject that you are trying to apply your skills in. dgh01: that's Dr. Costella to those in the peanut gallery --tap, tap, tap -- we're STILL waiting You mean like in Dr. Who, Dr. Frankenstein, or maybe of one of the 20th century's most famous real life mad doctors, Daniel Paul Schreber. A German jurist who went insane and recorded his experiences as a paranoid schizophrenic. I'd say paranoia would apply to thinking rain senors are tools of someone listening in on your conversations on the knoll or that a cordless electric razor coming on inside a bag at the airport may have been the work of the CIA. Call him 'Dr. Costella' if you like - most people call him 'Dr. Delusional'. Edited August 27, 2004 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now