Jump to content
The Education Forum

Old Costella errors still hanging around


Recommended Posts

The skill of a magician is in getting an audience to focus its attention where he wants it at a specific instant. And the success of magic lies in the ability to create illusions that have the appearance of reality.

David, you are a magician – getting everyone to focus on the messenger instead of the message. Because if they did focus on the message, the magic of Costella would be exposed as an illusion.

no Sherry, just a simple, straight forward media compositor, been doing that kind of magic for years. Next your going to tell us HOAX is required reading for your circle of associated... So looky here, this is Baghdad Bob Healy, Lady [compliments of Wee Willie *Bowel Movement Bill* - Miller] LMAO!

So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again? Talk about magic -- THAT my dear might make CSI-Las Vegas, NYC, Miami look twice. Right up there with 15 minute DNA analyses -- talk about SMOKE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

dgh: not necessary, Len. Find one expert or Physicist that blows his contentions out of the water, we'll go from there...

Yeh, Len .... you hear Healy - it's not necessary. It's only necessary when someone wants to be taken seriously and cares to know whether the work they claim to of done can be validated by their peers. Healy know this and because he understands what it means ... it is why he is forced to take the ridiculous position that he has chosen.

dgh: buy HOAX, Len....

Yes again, Len ... buy 'Hoax' and read it so you (like David Healy) will be able to say to this forum that you have seen no proof of alteration.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: not necessary, Len. Find one expert or Physicist that blows his contentions out of the water, we'll go from there...

Yeh, Len .... you hear Healy - it's not necessary. It's only necessary when someone wants to be taken seriously and cares to know whether the work they claim to of done can be validated by their peers. Healy know this and because he understands what it means ... it is why he is forced to take the ridiculous position that he has chosen.

dgh: buy HOAX, Len....

Yes again, Len ... buy 'Hoax' and read it so you (like David Healy) will be able to say to this forum that you have seen no proof of alteration.

Bill Miller

my, does Len need your persission to speak? Or is this just your overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again?

David, you are not attempting to tell us that Sherry should be faulted for offering an opinion by using the exact same film that Costella used to make his claims - ARE YOU???

Bill Miller

PS Can anyone tell me the names of some of these scientist that Costella wrote about below???

“More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film."

my, does Len need your persission to speak? Or is this just your overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN?

David, I cannot find where in my reply that I was telling Len what to say? In fact, I was sarcastically supporting the ridiculous things you had said.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Bill Miller' wrote:

So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again?

David, you are not attempting to tell us that Sherry should be faulted for offering an opinion by using the exact same film that Costella used to make his claims - ARE YOU???

dgh: of course, you think a first generation copy of the film was made privy to us? You lone nutters are terrified of that kind of occurence. Sherry has inside moves she can make, perhaps SHE can comment, or are you HER spokesperson (you do wear many hats) too?

PS Can anyone tell me the names of some of these scientist that Costella wrote about below???

“More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film."

email and ask Costella -- better yet, YOUfind a scientist or "blood spatter" analyst that'll confirm or deny it, for the record of course... hell, find a particle effects compositing specialist and ask if blood spray recreation was possible in the early 60's [whoops, or were frames removed]. Bring him/her in here, we'll chat it up....maybe Sherry will run your errrands for you!

David, I cannot find where in my reply that I was telling Len what to say? In fact, I was sarcastically supporting the ridiculous things you had said.

wasn't you I was addressing champ -- you're answering for him so, again, does Len need your permission to speak? Or, is this an overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN?

Bill Miller

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Bill Miller' wrote:
So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again?

David, you are not attempting to tell us that Sherry should be faulted for offering an opinion by using the exact same film that Costella used to make his claims - ARE YOU???

dgh: of course, you think a first generation copy of the film was made privy to us? You lone nutters are terrified of that kind of occurence. Sherry has inside moves she can make, perhaps SHE can comment, or are you HER spokesperson (you do wear many hats) too?

PS Can anyone tell me the names of some of these scientist that Costella wrote about below???

“More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film."

email and ask Costella -- better yet, YOUfind a scientist or "blood spatter" analyst that'll confirm or deny it, for the record of course... hell, find a particle effects compositing specialist and ask if blood spray recreation was possible in the early 60's [whoops, or were frames removed]. Bring him/her in here, we'll chat it up....maybe Sherry will run your errrands for you!

David, I cannot find where in my reply that I was telling Len what to say? In fact, I was sarcastically supporting the ridiculous things you had said.

wasn't you I was addressing champ -- you're answering for him so, again, does Len need your permission to speak? Or, is this an overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN?

Bill Miller

Bill - Trying to have an intelligent discussion with Healy is normally a waste of time.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Bill Miller' wrote:
So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again?

David, you are not attempting to tell us that Sherry should be faulted for offering an opinion by using the exact same film that Costella used to make his claims - ARE YOU???

dgh: of course, you think a first generation copy of the film was made privy to us? You lone nutters are terrified of that kind of occurence. Sherry has inside moves she can make, perhaps SHE can comment, or are you HER spokesperson (you do wear many hats) too?

PS Can anyone tell me the names of some of these scientist that Costella wrote about below???

“More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film."

email and ask Costella -- better yet, YOUfind a scientist or "blood spatter" analyst that'll confirm or deny it, for the record of course... hell, find a particle effects compositing specialist and ask if blood spray recreation was possible in the early 60's [whoops, or were frames removed]. Bring him/her in here, we'll chat it up....maybe Sherry will run your errrands for you!

David, I cannot find where in my reply that I was telling Len what to say? In fact, I was sarcastically supporting the ridiculous things you had said.

wasn't you I was addressing champ -- you're answering for him so, again, does Len need your permission to speak? Or, is this an overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN?

Bill Miller

Bill - Trying to have an intelligent discussion with Healy is normally a waste of time.

Len

Glad you snapped to there Len....

And you EXPECT one with Bowel Movement Bill?

BTW, as the the representative [to this forum] for Roland Zavada, and his new and improved report do you have any news? Been 8 months now... He's not still pissed at Harry Livingstone is he? Lurkers on this forum shouldn't have to pay for that...

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: of course, you think a first generation copy of the film was made privy to us? You lone nutters are terrified of that kind of occurence. Sherry has inside moves she can make, perhaps SHE can comment, or are you HER spokesperson (you do wear many hats) too?

David, your usual game is not going to work in this instance because whether the film is a fraud or not - Sherry has addressed the information that is still present on the film which shows that the President was shot from the front. I have gone over this very carefully with Sherry and I understand what she is saying because I listened to her ... you may want to do the same for it is the only way to learn anything.

email and ask Costella -- better yet, YOUfind a scientist or "blood spatter" analyst that'll confirm or deny it, for the record of course... hell, find a particle effects compositing specialist and ask if blood spray recreation was possible in the early 60's [whoops, or were frames removed]. Bring him/her in here, we'll chat it up....maybe Sherry will run your errrands for you! [/color]

We'll chat it up??? How can you chat up anything when you have not bothered to learn the subject matter. And why should I email Costella ... look for the footnotes and references at the end of his article .... he didn't give names because he didn't really have any names to offer. And before I'd be defending someone who didn't prove alteration to me (as is the case with you after seeing Costella's work), I'd first find out some of the basic facts such as who are these nameless scientist he speaks of.

wasn't you I was addressing champ -- you're answering for him so, again, does Len need your permission to speak? Or, is this an overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN? [/color]

I'm sorry, David ... I had this wild idea that when you respond to my post and ask if I am talking for Len - that somehow you were talking to me. Maybe it was another case of you just talking to be talking and nothing more.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad you snapped to there Len....

And you EXPECT one with Bowel Movement Bill?

BTW, as the the representative [to this forum] for Roland Zavada, and his new and improved report do you have any news? Been 8 months now... He's not still pissed at Harry Livingstone is he? Lurkers on this forum shouldn't have to pay for that...

Dave I won't even bother responding to you attempt at grade school humor I've been too old for that for well over 30 years now, how old are you? Around 60 isn't it? Seeeeesh!

Just when are we to expect your "formal claim"? Been 8 months now. remember the one you promised us all was going to be ready soon. Zavada privately promised his report 6 months ago (not 8) and said it was "going to take some time".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad you snapped to there Len....

And you EXPECT one with Bowel Movement Bill?

BTW, as the the representative [to this forum] for Roland Zavada, and his new and improved report do you have any news? Been 8 months now... He's not still pissed at Harry Livingstone is he? Lurkers on this forum shouldn't have to pay for that...

Dave I won't even bother responding to you attempt at grade school humor I've been too old for that for well over 30 years now, how old are you? Around 60 isn't it? Seeeeesh!

Just when are we to expect your "formal claim"? Been 8 months now. remember the one you promised us all was going to be ready soon. Zavada privately promised his report 6 months ago (not 8) and said it was "going to take some time".

Still here, still waiting champ -- now about your responsibility, how's Rollie doing on his report, or are you gonna hide behind my grade school humor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still here, still waiting champ -- now about your responsibility, how's Rollie doing on his report, or are you gonna hide behind my grade school humor?

David, I have seen perents have to tell their little kids not to worry about someone else, but to worry about themselves. You hardly have the right to bitch about others doing what you are also doing. You have made promises and not delivered on them, thus Len makes a good point. I realize that circumstances arise that prevents people from making deadlines and maybe this is what has happened with Zavada, but on the other hand I bet his tardiness won't be because he trolls forums and wasted a good portion of his time spanking his monkey.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again?

David, I am a court certified expert in this field. I used the same techniques used by all experts in this field. Those techniques and methods of documentation are detailed in my articles which have been available on the web for some time; and discussed at length on this and the JFK Lancer forum. Additionally, perhaps you could refer to the first post I made in this thread.

I noticed in all your post you never really address the issues, you just focus on attempting to discredit the person presenting the information. That is a bad habit, and a poor research technique. (That's what attorneys do in court when they are losing and haven't any hope of discreting the evidence - they attack the expert; guess you know that already though.) I really do wish you would do some outside reading on this subject - there are books at your local library, if you don't trust the information on the internet. Or call a local police agency and ask their forensic personel for information. Then you could address the issues from an informed and educated foundation. Of course, I'm sure there are those who wouldn't like that, they prefer let you be the one ultimately proved wrong.

Please, David, spend some time researching other sources for information concerning bloodspatter analysis.

Sherry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Sherry Gutierrez' wrote:

So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again?

David, I am a court certified expert in this field. I used the same techniques used by all experts in this field. Those techniques and methods of documentation are detailed in my articles which have been available on the web for some time; and discussed at length on this and the JFK Lancer forum. Additionally, perhaps you could refer to the first post I made in this thread.

here's a basic question, can you prove [or convince me beyond a reasonable doubt] JFK was hit by one, two, or three 6.5mm FMJ rounds and from where, based on available DP photo's and film? We can go from there....

I noticed in all your post you never really address the issues, you just focus on attempting to discredit the person presenting the information.

when there's valid points of evidentary value I'll chime in with them -- what I see is pure opinion and conjecture, here and elsewhere... You don't agree?

That is a bad habit, and a poor research technique. (That's what attorneys do in court when they are losing and haven't any hope of discreting the evidence - they attack the expert; guess you know that already though.)

well hell Sherry, you caught me [you might want to spend a little of your off research time and watch Bill Miller's posts]. Now, no matter how you cut it, this is what you have to deal with, "how'd you do a blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, from what appears as a altered, umpteenth generation-40+ year old, 8mm film?" They only gave you 30 minutes of Lancer time to explain this? Maybe they can find a PhD somewhere that can use the remaining 30 minutes of the block to explain away John Costella...

-and-

Do I have to tell YOU why there's no "professional" peer review regarding the photo's/film of Dealey Plaza, nor will there be a peer review of "blood spatter analysis" -- just unsubstantiated best case single source opinion, period!

I really do wish you would do some outside reading on this subject - there are books at your local library, if you don't trust the information on the internet. Or call a local police agency and ask their forensic personel for information.

Hey, what are you talking about? We invented CSI, the show in this town... couple NYC Detectives invented the science at the end of the 1800's yes?

Then you could address the issues from an informed and educated foundation. Of course, I'm sure there are those who wouldn't like that, they prefer let you be the one ultimately proved wrong.

Please, David, spend some time researching other sources for information concerning bloodspatter analysis.

Sherry best I can tell you've got 30 minutes of stage time at Lancer, you should be able to condense that down so a simple minded person, seated on a jury, will *get* whats needed for a conviction. Feel free referring to/using Myers animation imagery with additional overlays

Best regard's

DHealy

Sherry

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sherry best I can tell you've got 30 minutes of stage time at Lancer, you should be able to condense that down so a simple minded person, seated on a jury, will *get* whats needed for a conviction. Feel free referring to/using Myers animation imagery with additional overlays

Best regard's

DHealy

Sherry, most people know that Healy is little more than some jerk-off who gets his jollies trolling these forums. You are correct about the quality of the responses he gives, but he is not interested in JFK or his murder. Healy will say that unless he can hold all the original assassination photos and films in his hands, even though he is not qualified to know what he should be looking for, then in his view those images cannot be trusted ... even though he only says this when someone like me or yourself is posting information found within those said images. When Jack makes some idiotic claim or any other person promoting paranoia by way of some of the muddiest images I have ever seen, then Healy sits quiet. Nowhere in 'Hoax' does he tell the reader that the part of the book promoting alteration cannot be trusted for the same reasons that he gives us. One has to ask themselves why that is and because it is that way, then why is Healy even involved with these forums? Just as there is said to be disinformationist promoting the lone assassin theory, the same can be said about Healy being at the other end of the scale. Sometimes I have to wonder but what Healy's purpose here is to make CT's look totally ignorant and uninterested in knowing the evidence of this case. By his seemingly wishing to come across this way, then others can be looked upon in the same manner by 'guilt by association'. I mean look at the statement this moron gave you above! Maybe Healy thinks somehow that he has contributed something when he makes such disjointed statements in his responses, or maybe he tries to hide the fact that he doesn't know the subject matter well enough to intelligently discuss it with you, either way it is his problem. If John Simkin ever made a rule of engagement to where someone must offer actual data to support their responses, then Healy's time posting here would become nonexistent. Look back through Healy's responses on this forum or any other forum as far as that goes and let me know of one instance where he has ever said that he went into the Dallas Morning News, NARA, etc., and asked to see the original negative of any assassination photo or film so to have authenticated any one of them. Where most of us take the evidence as it is and we look for things that either support the offical version or discredits it - Healy does nothing but sit back and promote paranoia over the evidence of a case that he has shown no real interest in learning anything about it. This is the difference in how you feel about what happened to John F. Kennedy Vs. how Healy feels about it.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sherry best I can tell you've got 30 minutes of stage time at Lancer, you should be able to condense that down so a simple minded person, seated on a jury, will *get* whats needed for a conviction. Feel free referring to/using Myers animation imagery with additional overlays

Best regard's

DHealy

Sherry, most people know that Healy is little more than some jerk-off who gets his jollies trolling these forums. You are correct about the quality of the responses he gives, but he is not interested in JFK or his murder. Healy will say that unless he can hold all the original assassination photos and films in his hands, even though he is not qualified to know what he should be looking for, then in his view those images cannot be trusted ... even though he only says this when someone like me or yourself is posting information found within those said images. When Jack makes some idiotic claim or any other person promoting paranoia by way of some of the muddiest images I have ever seen, then Healy sits quiet. Nowhere in 'Hoax' does he tell the reader that the part of the book promoting alteration cannot be trusted for the same reasons that he gives us. One has to ask themselves why that is and because it is that way, then why is Healy even involved with these forums? Just as there is said to be disinformationist promoting the lone assassin theory, the same can be said about Healy being at the other end of the scale. Sometimes I have to wonder but what Healy's purpose here is to make CT's look totally ignorant and uninterested in knowing the evidence of this case. By his seemingly wishing to come across this way, then others can be looked upon in the same manner by 'guilt by association'. I mean look at the statement this moron gave you above! Maybe Healy thinks somehow that he has contributed something when he makes such disjointed statements in his responses, or maybe he tries to hide the fact that he doesn't know the subject matter well enough to intelligently discuss it with you, either way it is his problem. If John Simkin ever made a rule of engagement to where someone must offer actual data to support their responses, then Healy's time posting here would become nonexistent. Look back through Healy's responses on this forum or any other forum as far as that goes and let me know of one instance where he has ever said that he went into the Dallas Morning News, NARA, etc., and asked to see the original negative of any assassination photo or film so to have authenticated any one of them. Where most of us take the evidence as it is and we look for things that either support the offical version or discredits it - Healy does nothing but sit back and promote paranoia over the evidence of a case that he has shown no real interest in learning anything about it. This is the difference in how you feel about what happened to John F. Kennedy Vs. how Healy feels about it.

Bill Miller

**F L U S H** this is way beyond you, Bill! I'm speaking to someone that SHOULD know what admissable evidence is so, sit down please.....

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...