Michael Hogan Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Edit –typos fixed Wonders never cease. I've noticed you've been much more careful with fonts and the general appearance of your posts in the last month or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 'Len Colby' dronned on..... [...] Bill thanks for pointing that out but you missed the greater irony. Healy has never clarified what his experince regarding movie film and cameras and more importantly post production techniques is. Yes we all know he knows his stuff regarding VIDEO cameras, tape and post production but they're hardly the same thing. dgh: "greater irony?" tell me the 1963 post-production differences between the two, Len'ster, right below here, between the brackets { } let's see your stuff, LMAO! I never claim such expertise which is why I normally avoid technical issues other than to quote people (unlike Jack and David) have proven expertise. dgh: "...claim such experience..." uh-huh LMAO -- I should clarify my experience to who? YOU, MILLER, LAMSON The world? ROTFLMFAO! You normally avoid technical issues, cut the crap Len'ster. I don't talk craft with anyone Len, unless of course they've **proven credentials**, that makes you a non-entity Len, by your OWN definition herein.... The best defense re the tech aspects of the Z-film you Lone Nut dufuses can mount is Lamson, a still photographer (and not a bad one either, certainly no Lebovitz, but not bad), however, not one tv/film production credit to his name that I know of.... BUY and READ HOAX, my experience is there, till then import/export something, you have my continued permission to hold Miller's hand if you wish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 dgh: "...claim such experience..." uh-huh LMAO -- I should clarify my experience to who? YOU, MILLER, LAMSON The world? ROTFLMFAO! It is said that when a person gets backed into a corner and has nowhere to go ... rather than to explain themselves, they take the position that they don't have to explain themself to anybody. In doing just that, David ... you have made it possible to use your own words against you and to expose the fact that your purpose here is just to xxxxx the forums. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) The best defense re the tech aspects of the Z-film you Lone Nut dufuses can mount is Lamson, David, you have taken a position that there is no proof the Zapruder film is altered and another that you believe the same Zapruder film is altered. Which half of you falls under the "lone nut dufuses" ... the left side of your body or the right? Bill Miller Edited January 5, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) The best defense re the tech aspects of the Z-film you Lone Nut dufuses can mount is Lamson, David, you have taken a position that there is no proof the Zapruder film is altered and another that you believe the same Zapruder film is altered. Which half of you falls under the "lone nut dufuses" ... the left side of your body or the right? Bill Miller dgh: listen up little guy, No one here or on any other board needs you to reinforce the long held Lone Nut mantra: the Zapruder film was NOT altered, you've spent your entire new found career reinforcing what the Warren Commission said 40+ years ago, LHO shot and killed JFK, alone! We AREN'T fooled! Nor is it necessary to delve into a long diatribe describing your unaltered faith to the CT cause, no one believes you, Bill. hence, you're a lone nut dufus. Your JFK related comments and illusionary moments of grandeur are meaningless to me and many other's. Now why don't you do something constructive and tell us what Groden had to say about the Z-frame (170) I posted afew day's back? Can't you Z-film experts do ANYTHING? Best guess the generation, you ole film EXPERT, you! Edited January 5, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary Loughran Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Bill, I don't think these points a position that there is no proof the Zapruder film is altered and another that you believe the same Zapruder film is altered. Which half of you falls under the "lone nut dufuses" ... the left side of your body or the right? are necessarily as incongruous as you suggest. People day and daily believe in many things for which they have no proof, as I'm sure you're aware! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Bill, I don't think these pointsa position that there is no proof the Zapruder film is altered and another that you believe the same Zapruder film is altered. Which half of you falls under the "lone nut dufuses" ... the left side of your body or the right? are necessarily as incongruous as you suggest. People day and daily believe in many things for which they have no proof, as I'm sure you're aware! Gary, the difference is that people generally know why they feel one way or the other .... Healy takes both positions. He should have been a politician IMO. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) dgh: listen up little guy, No one here or on any other board needs you to reinforce the long held Lone Nut mantra: the Zapruder film was NOT altered, you've spent your entire new found career reinforcing what the Warren Commission said 40+ years ago, LHO shot and killed JFK, alone! We AREN'T fooled! Nor is it necessary to delve into a long diatribe describing your unaltered faith to the CT cause, no one believes you, Bill. hence, you're a lone nut dufus. Here is your chance to educate a dufus in your mind, David ... Why is that someone has to believe that the Zapruder film was altered in order to believe that there was a conspiracy? How many post have I made stating how the Zapruder film appears to show JFK being shot from the front with my citing the blood spatter science to support it? Your Baghdad Bob Healy responses will not go unexposed, David - get used to it - for I will make you eat your words with your own words from here on out. Now why don't you do something constructive and tell us what Groden had to say about the Z-frame (170) I posted afew day's back? Can't you Z-film experts do ANYTHING? Best guess the generation, you ole film EXPERT, you! Aside from not citing where you posted a film frame as you expect others to do, let's see if I understand you correctly ... a guy (YOU) who tells others that he needs to have the film in front of him, and not some computer image, so he can determine if its an original or a copy print ... wants Groden to look at your computer image and render a professional opinion. Once again you are contradicting things you have said in other post. Now who is wasting bandwidth, David! Bill Miller Edited January 5, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 you've spent your entire new found career reinforcing what the Warren Commission said 40+ years ago, LHO shot and killed JFK, alone! I have been reading Bill Miller's posts for the past couple of years or so, here and on the Lancer forum. I have never seen ANYTHING to suggest that he supports the Warren Commission argument. It is clear to me that Bill is arguing that the film/photo evidence shows that JFK was killed by a bullet fired from the grassy knoll, and no such argument appears in the Warren Report, as most everyone in the world knows by now. It is illogical to suggest, as David Healy appears to be doing, that someone supports the WC conclusions just because they see no reason to doubt that the Zapruder film is authentic. Is Josiah Thompson a Lone Nutter? What about Sylvia Meagher or Harold Weisberg? None of them ever seriously doubted that the Z-film is authentic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 (edited) I had not previously seen where Bill Miller had stated that he believed that a shot had been fired into John Kennedy from the grassy knoll. I know that he has said that Jack White's early work with the backyard photos had some validity and credence with which he could agree. I also remember a .gif Bill had created years ago showing the ridiculous discrepancy between the size of the Oswald head in CE 133A and CE 133C. Agreeing that the pictures of Oswald underwent any sort of tampering, adjustment or enhancement equates, to me, with an agreement that the images were not quite ready for "prime time"- and lends support to Oswald's claim that the pictures were fraudulent and that his head had been pasted atop another man's body. I wish Bill would state exactly what he believes about the possibility of multiple assassins - and the possible framing of Oswald - because I am often confused by the positions he takes as to what his real beliefs are. I'd particularly like to know what it was that he found correct about Jack White's analysis of the backyard pictures. Edited January 7, 2007 by JL Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 (edited) I had not previously seen where Bill Miller had stated that he believed that a shot had been fired into John Kennedy from the grassy knoll. I know that he has said that Jack White's early work with the backyard photos had some validity and credence with which he could agree. I also remember a .gif Bill had created years ago showing the ridiculous discrepancy between the size of the Oswald head in CE 133A and CE 133C. Agreeing that the pictures of Oswald underwent any sort of tampering, adjustment or enhancement equates, to me, with an agreement that the images were not quite ready for "prime time"- and lends support to Oswald's claim that the pictures were fraudulent and that his head had been pasted atop another man's body. I wish Bill would state exactly what he believes about the possibility of multiple assassins - and the possible framing of Oswald - because I am often confused by the positions he takes as to what his real beliefs are. I'd particularly like to know what it was that he found correct about Jack White's analysis of the backyard pictures. The last part of your question was answered in your post when you stated that the head of Oswald wasn't looking right in the clip overlays I presented. I recall that the clip I did showed how one Backyard picture was obviously taken somewhat closer to the subject than the other for the body had grown in size considerably, while the heads between the two photos remained the same size. I also believe that Jack White and Gary Mack's badgeman work is legit. I believe that Badge Man shot over Gordon Arnold's shoulder just after the head shot and that his bullet made the furrow in the grass that Mrs. Edna Hartman said led back to the big tree above the knoll. I believe that the smoke that the witnesses saw come through the trees was the result of the kill shot to JFK's head. I believe that the smoke can be detected in the Wiegman and Zapruder films. I believe that Dillard caught the head of another man in the SW corner of the 6th floor soon after the shooting, which makes me have reservations about Oswald ever shooting anyone. I believe that no less than four shots were fired at the President. I believe the first came between Z186 and Z202, which corresponds with JFK waving at the women next to Mary Woodard as she said he was then hit. I believe that Connally was hit between Z223 and Z224. I also believe as Kellerman described ... that there was a sonic boom sound at the time of the President's head shot. I believe that the man Hoffman saw (Hat Man) fired the fatal shot, while Badge Man missed causing the furrow in the grass. I also feel that there is evidence that a bullet hit the chrome strip between the limo's sun visors and that at least one bullet hit the street causing witnesses to see it. I believe that at some point that a missed shot struck the curb near James Tauge. And lastly, I believe that anyone saying that because I do not believe in Zfilm alteration that it somehow makes me a lone assassin supporter is an idiot!!! Bill Edited January 7, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Thank you, Bill... that's alot to chew on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 you've spent your entire new found career reinforcing what the Warren Commission said 40+ years ago, LHO shot and killed JFK, alone! I have been reading Bill Miller's posts for the past couple of years or so, here and on the Lancer forum. I have never seen ANYTHING to suggest that he supports the Warren Commission argument. It is clear to me that Bill is arguing that the film/photo evidence shows that JFK was killed by a bullet fired from the grassy knoll, and no such argument appears in the Warren Report, as most everyone in the world knows by now. It is illogical to suggest, as David Healy appears to be doing, that someone supports the WC conclusions just because they see no reason to doubt that the Zapruder film is authentic. Is Josiah Thompson a Lone Nutter? What about Sylvia Meagher or Harold Weisberg? None of them ever seriously doubted that the Z-film is authentic. all the posturing isn't getting Miller's film/photo qualifications posted. I could care less whether he, Miller or Thompson, Meagher, Weisberg believe that JFK was murder via a conspiracy. Frankly I find it a supreme insult that Miller's name is grouped with those esteem investigators -- What's your excuse for that, Carroll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 I had not previously seen where Bill Miller had stated that he believed that a shot had been fired into John Kennedy from the grassy knoll. I know that he has said that Jack White's early work with the backyard photos had some validity and credence with which he could agree. I also remember a .gif Bill had created years ago showing the ridiculous discrepancy between the size of the Oswald head in CE 133A and CE 133C. Agreeing that the pictures of Oswald underwent any sort of tampering, adjustment or enhancement equates, to me, with an agreement that the images were not quite ready for "prime time"- and lends support to Oswald's claim that the pictures were fraudulent and that his head had been pasted atop another man's body. I wish Bill would state exactly what he believes about the possibility of multiple assassins - and the possible framing of Oswald - because I am often confused by the positions he takes as to what his real beliefs are. I'd particularly like to know what it was that he found correct about Jack White's analysis of the backyard pictures. The last part of your question was answered in your post when you stated that the head of Oswald wasn't looking right in the clip overlays I presented. I recall that the clip I did showed how one Backyard picture was obviously taken somewhat closer to the subject than the other for the body had grown in size considerably, while the heads between the two photos remained the same size. I also believe that Jack White and Gary Mack's badgeman work is legit. I believe that Badge Man shot over Gordon Arnold's shoulder just after the head shot and that his bullet made the furrow in the grass that Mrs. Edna Hartman said led back to the big tree above the knoll. I believe that the smoke that the witnesses saw come through the trees was the result of the kill shot to JFK's head. I believe that the smoke can be detected in the Wiegman and Zapruder films. I believe that Dillard caught the head of another man in the SW corner of the 6th floor soon after the shooting, which makes me have reservations about Oswald ever shooting anyone. I believe that no less than four shots were fired at the President. I believe the first came between Z186 and Z202, which corresponds with JFK waving at the women next to Mary Woodard as she said he was then hit. I believe that Connally was hit between Z223 and Z224. I also believe as Kellerman described ... that there was a sonic boom sound at the time of the President's head shot. I believe that the man Hoffman saw (Hat Man) fired the fatal shot, while Badge Man missed causing the furrow in the grass. I also feel that there is evidence that a bullet hit the chrome strip between the limo's sun visors and that at least one bullet hit the street causing witnesses to see it. I believe that at some point that a missed shot struck the curb near James Tauge. And lastly, I believe that anyone saying that because I do not believe in Zfilm alteration that it somehow makes me a lone assassin supporter is an idiot!!! Bill as they say: yee who squeals the loudest has something to hide..... now, your film/photo qualifications are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 all the posturing isn't getting Miller's film/photo qualifications posted. By their deeds shall ye know them, and I judge Bill Miller's expertise by the images he posts and the quality of his analyses. I recall that in his classic autobiographical piece somewhere on this forum, Bill mentions that he likes looking at pretty girls. Surely no further proof is needed that he is a born photographer. I could care less whether he, Miller or Thompson, Meagher, Weisberg believe .... Frankly I find it a supreme insult that Miller's name is grouped with those esteem investigators -- What's your excuse for that, Carroll? Mr. Healy should be honored to see his name mentioned in this company, and he should care about the opinion of people he esteems. 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