Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/conn_n.htm Mrs. CONNALLY: I put my head down over his head so that his head and my head were right together, and all I could see, too, were the people flashing by. I didn't look back any more. The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of us. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm Governor CONNALLY: So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear. Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/altgens.htm Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z340.jpg Mr. ALTGENS: There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, off and on we have been referring to the third shot and the fourth shot; but actually, it was the last shot, the shot did strike the President and there was no other sound like a shot that was made after that ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hudson.htm Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out and, of course, I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place right at that present time, and when the second one rung out, the motorcade had done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot. Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear. Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side? Mr. HUDSON - Right hand. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was. Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question in your mind about that, was there? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here another shot? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is Sooooooooooooooooooooo difficult to resolve. I may not even be able to get any sleep tonight thinking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 (edited) "Looks like the DP eyewitness accounts are under attack... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts -- one can tell who the 'preservers of Dealey Plaza History' cheerleaders are -- Unfortunaltely for some, what they need to avoid, at ALL costs, is WCR testimony and the SBT...." David, While I find some of what you said to be probably true ... it too, is little more than cheerleading in itself. Now to address the person with actual evidence whose text was copied in your response ... Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman a couple of years ago what she thought about the "Moorman was in the street" claim and Mary said (according to Mark) that "it is silly". Mary told Mark that she was standing right where the Zapruder film shows her to be. This person whose text I'm referring to must not have read all the claims made within Jack's claim for Jack also said that Jean Hill was in the street with Mary when the cycles passed by them. I would invite this person to look at the Muchmore film because it picks up within a second or so from when Altgens took his photograph. Altgens photograph shows Mary and Jean's shadows barely reaching over the curb and onto the street, which is exactly what the Zapruder film shows. None of the assasination films show Moorman and Hill moving into or out of the street as the cycles pass by and Altgens #6 gives one a side view of just how close those cycles handbars come to the curb as they rode down Elm Street. I have pointed out many times that Moorman's camera is looking over the tops of the windshields of the cycle riders and that their known windshield hieght is 4" taller than Jack gives for Moorman's camera height. Jack doesn't say Moorman stood on a box while in the street, nor does he say that Hill laid on the ground so Mary could stand on Jean so she could get her camera higher than those cycles windshields, so how does Jack address this ... HE DOESN'T! How does Fetzer address this - HE DOESN'T! One day when I was in the plaza with Robert Groden and we were talking about how foolish this Moorman in the street claim was - we decided to shoot a Muchmore recreation shot to make a point about Mary and Jean's shoes being seen in Marie's film. You see, as Altgens #6 photograph shows, the hill slopes down to the curb and the curb drops another 8 to 9 inches. This means that for Hill and Moorman to be in the street and over that slope, plus the curb, their shoes could not possibly be seen from where Muchore stood. The recreation photos Robert and I shot with stand-ins proved this beyone any doubt. How did Jack address this - HE DIDN'T! How did Fetzer address this - HE DIDN'T. Jack White also had claimed that Jean Hill had said that she had gotten into the street and he used those words in support of his conclusion. Jack is correct - Jean did say she had gotten into the street. What Jack didn't tell the readers of his claim was that Jean stepped into the street as JFK had rounded the corner and she yelled at him to look her and Mary's direction. Jean was asked point blank on Black-Op radio about her stepping into the street and Jean said that she had gotten back up out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD SOUNDED. When Fetzer came on Lancer's forum in defense of his reputation, he was confronted with these type of errors involving the alteration claims in his book and Fetzer's reply was that he didn't consider himself responsible for the claims others made in his book. Moorman being said to have been in the street was in fact a claim that Fetzer had supported. Jack in turn posted recently, " I am distressed, however, when they hold a view that is unsound, and REFUSE to even consider the evidence to the contrary. What is to be gained by supporting the validity of the film?" Ironic that Jack says this dispite the evidence against him even told by the actual people who were there. Jack implies in his last sentence that he doesn't understand what's to be gained by supporting the validity of the Zapruder film, but I guess one could easily ask Jack what is to be gained by falsely claiming the Zapruder film is altered? Below is an overlay showing Jack and Fetzer's Moorman recreation photo against that of Moorman's. A cursory glance can tell someone that their camera was too low and too far east to be at the right place to get Moorman's position. Had they of gotten Moorman's location correct, then there would be no shifting taking place between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window. Yet despite what White says about how distressed he gets when reserahcers hold a view that is unsound ... he has and will continue doing the same thing despite the evidence showing that he was in error. It is great to show that there was a conspiracy and it is not the fact that Jack makes mistakes that bothers many of us. Instead it is the idea that he is willing to ignore the facts even if it means discrediting the witnesses to push a claim that he wants people to believe. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited February 20, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 having independently before (and posted so in another thread) found what Bill is showing here, I state that 'I confirm what Bill's gif shows is correct, placing photographer not as suggested by Jack et al.'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 having independently before (and posted so in another thread) found what Bill is showing here, I state that 'I confirm what Bill's gif shows is correct, placing photographer not as suggested by Jack et al.'. Just for the record, John, I have also verified that Bill's gif is correct. I recall your posting on this subject as well. I suspect that in no time, you and I will be branded "Lancer Disinformationalists" or "Bill Miller Flunkies" or be informed that we're "not qualified to have an opinion" or something of the like... No wonder the case hasn't been solved 42+ years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) having independently before (and posted so in another thread) found what Bill is showing here, I state that 'I confirm what Bill's gif shows is correct, placing photographer not as suggested by Jack et al.'. Just for the record, John, I have also verified that Bill's gif is correct. I recall your posting on this subject as well. I suspect that in no time, you and I will be branded "Lancer Disinformationalists" or "Bill Miller Flunkies" or be informed that we're "not qualified to have an opinion" or something of the like... No wonder the case hasn't been solved 42+ years later. for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing. FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL! "Looks like the DP eyewitness accounts are under attack... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts -- one can tell who the 'preservers of Dealey Plaza History' cheerleaders are -- Unfortunaltely for some, what they need to avoid, at ALL costs, is WCR testimony and the SBT...." David, While I find some of what you said to be probably true ... it too, is little more than cheerleading in itself. Now to address the person with actual evidence whose text was copied in your response ... Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman a couple of years ago what she thought about the "Moorman was in the street" claim and Mary said (according to Mark) that "it is silly". Mary told Mark that she was standing right where the Zapruder film shows her to be. This person whose text I'm referring to must not have read all the claims made within Jack's claim for Jack also said that Jean Hill was in the street with Mary when the cycles passed by them. I would invite this person to look at the Muchmore film because it picks up within a second or so from when Altgens took his photograph. Altgens photograph shows Mary and Jean's shadows barely reaching over the curb and onto the street, which is exactly what the Zapruder film shows. None of the assasination films show Moorman and Hill moving into or out of the street as the cycles pass by and Altgens #6 gives one a side view of just how close those cycles handbars come to the curb as they rode down Elm Street. I have pointed out many times that Moorman's camera is looking over the tops of the windshields of the cycle riders and that their known windshield hieght is 4" taller than Jack gives for Moorman's camera height. Jack doesn't say Moorman stood on a box while in the street, nor does he say that Hill laid on the ground so Mary could stand on Jean so she could get her camera higher than those cycles windshields, so how does Jack address this ... HE DOESN'T! How does Fetzer address this - HE DOESN'T! One day when I was in the plaza with Robert Groden and we were talking about how foolish this Moorman in the street claim was - we decided to shoot a Muchmore recreation shot to make a point about Mary and Jean's shoes being seen in Marie's film. You see, as Altgens #6 photograph shows, the hill slopes down to the curb and the curb drops another 8 to 9 inches. This means that for Hill and Moorman to be in the street and over that slope, plus the curb, their shoes could not possibly be seen from where Muchore stood. The recreation photos Robert and I shot with stand-ins proved this beyone any doubt. How did Jack address this - HE DIDN'T! How did Fetzer address this - HE DIDN'T. Jack White also had claimed that Jean Hill had said that she had goitten into the street and he used those words in support of his conclusion. Jack is correct - Jean did say she had gotten into the street. What Jack didn't tell the readers of his claim was that Jean stepped into the street as JFK had rounded the corner and she yelled at him to look her and Mary's direction. Jean was asked point blank on Black-Op radio about her stepping into the street and Jean said that she had gotten back up out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD SOUNDED. When Fetzer came on Lancer's forum in defense of his reputation, he was confronted with these type of errors involving the alteration claims in his book and Fetzer's reply was that he didn't consider himself responsible for the claims others made in his book. Moorman being said to have been in the street was in fact a claim that Fetzer had supported. Jack in turn posted recently, " I am distressed, however, when they hold a view that is unsound, and REFUSE to even consider the evidence to the contrary. What is to be gained by supporting the validity of the film?" Ironic that Jack says this dispite the evidence against him even told by the actual people who were there. Jack implies in his last sentence that he doesn't understand what's to be gained by supporting the validity of the Zapruder film, but I guess one could easily ask Jack what is to be gained by falsely claiming the Zapruder film is altered? Below is an overlay showing Jack and Fetzer's Moorman recreation photo against that of Moorman's. A cursory glance can tell someone that their camera was too low and too far east to be at the right place to get Moorman's position. Had they of gotten Moorman's location correct, then there would be no shifting taking place between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window. Yet despite what White says about how distressed he gets when reserahcers hold a view that is unsound ... he has and will continue doing the same thing despite the evidence showing that he was in error. It is great to show that there was a conspiracy and it is not the fact that Jack makes mistakes that bothers many of us. Instead it is the idea that he is willing to ignore the facts even if it means discrediting the witnesses to push a cllaim mthat he wants people to believe. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any! Just, trust me. Edited February 20, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) 'Sherry Gutierrez' Why I am qualified to respond: I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida; including US Federal District Court. I formerly headed the Forensic Investigative Unit for St. Charles Parish of the Louisiana Sheriff's Department and prior to that was second in command at the Lafayette Parish Metro Forensic Unit which served eight parishes. Presently, I am retired yet still do limited consultation for attorneys and law enforcement officials. When I retired I allowed my professional memberships expire. However, I was a member of the International Association for Identification and acquired the Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst certification. I have served on IAIs subcommittee for bloodstain pattern evidence, and have presented at international and state conferences for that organization. I was a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction. I am recognized as a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis course instructor by the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the International Association for Identification; and have taught that field of investigation to law enforcement agencies and at police academies for over 20 years. I have published 15 articles in peer reviewed journals, and given lectures at national and international levels. I published my findings concerning the Kennedy Assassination on the web originally in 1995 and have yet for one expert in my field to review my work and find my methods in error. dgh01: Hello Sherry - surely you won't mind pointing to ANY case where your *expert* blood spatter analysis was requested and you rendered same, based on film of the murder and the crime scene in real time? I'm curious to know the disposition of said case... Thanks, David Healy [...] Edited February 20, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 having independently before (and posted so in another thread) found what Bill is showing here, I state that 'I confirm what Bill's gif shows is correct, placing photographer not as suggested by Jack et al.'. Just for the record, John, I have also verified that Bill's gif is correct. I recall your posting on this subject as well. I suspect that in no time, you and I will be branded "Lancer Disinformationalists" or "Bill Miller Flunkies" or be informed that we're "not qualified to have an opinion" or something of the like... No wonder the case hasn't been solved 42+ years later. for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing. FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL! "Looks like the DP eyewitness accounts are under attack... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts -- one can tell who the 'preservers of Dealey Plaza History' cheerleaders are -- Unfortunaltely for some, what they need to avoid, at ALL costs, is WCR testimony and the SBT...." David, While I find some of what you said to be probably true ... it too, is little more than cheerleading in itself. Now to address the person with actual evidence whose text was copied in your response ... Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman a couple of years ago what she thought about the "Moorman was in the street" claim and Mary said (according to Mark) that "it is silly". Mary told Mark that she was standing right where the Zapruder film shows her to be. This person whose text I'm referring to must not have read all the claims made within Jack's claim for Jack also said that Jean Hill was in the street with Mary when the cycles passed by them. I would invite this person to look at the Muchmore film because it picks up within a second or so from when Altgens took his photograph. Altgens photograph shows Mary and Jean's shadows barely reaching over the curb and onto the street, which is exactly what the Zapruder film shows. None of the assasination films show Moorman and Hill moving into or out of the street as the cycles pass by and Altgens #6 gives one a side view of just how close those cycles handbars come to the curb as they rode down Elm Street. I have pointed out many times that Moorman's camera is looking over the tops of the windshields of the cycle riders and that their known windshield hieght is 4" taller than Jack gives for Moorman's camera height. Jack doesn't say Moorman stood on a box while in the street, nor does he say that Hill laid on the ground so Mary could stand on Jean so she could get her camera higher than those cycles windshields, so how does Jack address this ... HE DOESN'T! How does Fetzer address this - HE DOESN'T! One day when I was in the plaza with Robert Groden and we were talking about how foolish this Moorman in the street claim was - we decided to shoot a Muchmore recreation shot to make a point about Mary and Jean's shoes being seen in Marie's film. You see, as Altgens #6 photograph shows, the hill slopes down to the curb and the curb drops another 8 to 9 inches. This means that for Hill and Moorman to be in the street and over that slope, plus the curb, their shoes could not possibly be seen from where Muchore stood. The recreation photos Robert and I shot with stand-ins proved this beyone any doubt. How did Jack address this - HE DIDN'T! How did Fetzer address this - HE DIDN'T. Jack White also had claimed that Jean Hill had said that she had goitten into the street and he used those words in support of his conclusion. Jack is correct - Jean did say she had gotten into the street. What Jack didn't tell the readers of his claim was that Jean stepped into the street as JFK had rounded the corner and she yelled at him to look her and Mary's direction. Jean was asked point blank on Black-Op radio about her stepping into the street and Jean said that she had gotten back up out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD SOUNDED. When Fetzer came on Lancer's forum in defense of his reputation, he was confronted with these type of errors involving the alteration claims in his book and Fetzer's reply was that he didn't consider himself responsible for the claims others made in his book. Moorman being said to have been in the street was in fact a claim that Fetzer had supported. Jack in turn posted recently, " I am distressed, however, when they hold a view that is unsound, and REFUSE to even consider the evidence to the contrary. What is to be gained by supporting the validity of the film?" Ironic that Jack says this dispite the evidence against him even told by the actual people who were there. Jack implies in his last sentence that he doesn't understand what's to be gained by supporting the validity of the Zapruder film, but I guess one could easily ask Jack what is to be gained by falsely claiming the Zapruder film is altered? Below is an overlay showing Jack and Fetzer's Moorman recreation photo against that of Moorman's. A cursory glance can tell someone that their camera was too low and too far east to be at the right place to get Moorman's position. Had they of gotten Moorman's location correct, then there would be no shifting taking place between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window. Yet despite what White says about how distressed he gets when reserahcers hold a view that is unsound ... he has and will continue doing the same thing despite the evidence showing that he was in error. It is great to show that there was a conspiracy and it is not the fact that Jack makes mistakes that bothers many of us. Instead it is the idea that he is willing to ignore the facts even if it means discrediting the witnesses to push a cllaim mthat he wants people to believe. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any! Just, trust me. Here David..sit...roll over..now play dead... White was wrong on this silly Moorman in the street claim...get over it. Your team lost that round. As for White having touched lots of images ... great. Iits really too bad he is so inept at dealing with issues photographic. You retouch the Moorman? Now thats a laugh. Based on your published works in the regard...well quite frankly Dave you simply suck at it. Bow wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 having independently before (and posted so in another thread) found what Bill is showing here, I state that 'I confirm what Bill's gif shows is correct, placing photographer not as suggested by Jack et al.'. Just for the record, John, I have also verified that Bill's gif is correct. I recall your posting on this subject as well. I suspect that in no time, you and I will be branded "Lancer Disinformationalists" or "Bill Miller Flunkies" or be informed that we're "not qualified to have an opinion" or something of the like... No wonder the case hasn't been solved 42+ years later. for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing. FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL! "Looks like the DP eyewitness accounts are under attack... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts -- one can tell who the 'preservers of Dealey Plaza History' cheerleaders are -- Unfortunaltely for some, what they need to avoid, at ALL costs, is WCR testimony and the SBT...." David, While I find some of what you said to be probably true ... it too, is little more than cheerleading in itself. Now to address the person with actual evidence whose text was copied in your response ... Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman a couple of years ago what she thought about the "Moorman was in the street" claim and Mary said (according to Mark) that "it is silly". Mary told Mark that she was standing right where the Zapruder film shows her to be. This person whose text I'm referring to must not have read all the claims made within Jack's claim for Jack also said that Jean Hill was in the street with Mary when the cycles passed by them. I would invite this person to look at the Muchmore film because it picks up within a second or so from when Altgens took his photograph. Altgens photograph shows Mary and Jean's shadows barely reaching over the curb and onto the street, which is exactly what the Zapruder film shows. None of the assasination films show Moorman and Hill moving into or out of the street as the cycles pass by and Altgens #6 gives one a side view of just how close those cycles handbars come to the curb as they rode down Elm Street. I have pointed out many times that Moorman's camera is looking over the tops of the windshields of the cycle riders and that their known windshield hieght is 4" taller than Jack gives for Moorman's camera height. Jack doesn't say Moorman stood on a box while in the street, nor does he say that Hill laid on the ground so Mary could stand on Jean so she could get her camera higher than those cycles windshields, so how does Jack address this ... HE DOESN'T! How does Fetzer address this - HE DOESN'T! One day when I was in the plaza with Robert Groden and we were talking about how foolish this Moorman in the street claim was - we decided to shoot a Muchmore recreation shot to make a point about Mary and Jean's shoes being seen in Marie's film. You see, as Altgens #6 photograph shows, the hill slopes down to the curb and the curb drops another 8 to 9 inches. This means that for Hill and Moorman to be in the street and over that slope, plus the curb, their shoes could not possibly be seen from where Muchore stood. The recreation photos Robert and I shot with stand-ins proved this beyone any doubt. How did Jack address this - HE DIDN'T! How did Fetzer address this - HE DIDN'T. Jack White also had claimed that Jean Hill had said that she had goitten into the street and he used those words in support of his conclusion. Jack is correct - Jean did say she had gotten into the street. What Jack didn't tell the readers of his claim was that Jean stepped into the street as JFK had rounded the corner and she yelled at him to look her and Mary's direction. Jean was asked point blank on Black-Op radio about her stepping into the street and Jean said that she had gotten back up out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD SOUNDED. When Fetzer came on Lancer's forum in defense of his reputation, he was confronted with these type of errors involving the alteration claims in his book and Fetzer's reply was that he didn't consider himself responsible for the claims others made in his book. Moorman being said to have been in the street was in fact a claim that Fetzer had supported. Jack in turn posted recently, " I am distressed, however, when they hold a view that is unsound, and REFUSE to even consider the evidence to the contrary. What is to be gained by supporting the validity of the film?" Ironic that Jack says this dispite the evidence against him even told by the actual people who were there. Jack implies in his last sentence that he doesn't understand what's to be gained by supporting the validity of the Zapruder film, but I guess one could easily ask Jack what is to be gained by falsely claiming the Zapruder film is altered? Below is an overlay showing Jack and Fetzer's Moorman recreation photo against that of Moorman's. A cursory glance can tell someone that their camera was too low and too far east to be at the right place to get Moorman's position. Had they of gotten Moorman's location correct, then there would be no shifting taking place between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window. Yet despite what White says about how distressed he gets when reserahcers hold a view that is unsound ... he has and will continue doing the same thing despite the evidence showing that he was in error. It is great to show that there was a conspiracy and it is not the fact that Jack makes mistakes that bothers many of us. Instead it is the idea that he is willing to ignore the facts even if it means discrediting the witnesses to push a cllaim mthat he wants people to believe. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any! Just, trust me. Here David..sit...roll over..now play dead... White was wrong on this silly Moorman in the street claim...get over it. Your team lost that round. As for White having touched lots of images ... great. Iits really too bad he is so inept at dealing with issues photographic. You retouch the Moorman? Now thats a laugh. Based on your published works in the regard...well quite frankly Dave you simply suck at it. Bow wow! roflmfao, ROFLMFAO --- I'm as good at photo retouching as you're a photog --- I hire both - who needs to do retouching, I view results -- what we're seeing here Lurkers is "bent EGO" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 having independently before (and posted so in another thread) found what Bill is showing here, I state that 'I confirm what Bill's gif shows is correct, placing photographer not as suggested by Jack et al.'. Just for the record, John, I have also verified that Bill's gif is correct. I recall your posting on this subject as well. I suspect that in no time, you and I will be branded "Lancer Disinformationalists" or "Bill Miller Flunkies" or be informed that we're "not qualified to have an opinion" or something of the like... No wonder the case hasn't been solved 42+ years later. for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing. FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL! "Looks like the DP eyewitness accounts are under attack... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts -- one can tell who the 'preservers of Dealey Plaza History' cheerleaders are -- Unfortunaltely for some, what they need to avoid, at ALL costs, is WCR testimony and the SBT...." David, While I find some of what you said to be probably true ... it too, is little more than cheerleading in itself. Now to address the person with actual evidence whose text was copied in your response ... Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman a couple of years ago what she thought about the "Moorman was in the street" claim and Mary said (according to Mark) that "it is silly". Mary told Mark that she was standing right where the Zapruder film shows her to be. This person whose text I'm referring to must not have read all the claims made within Jack's claim for Jack also said that Jean Hill was in the street with Mary when the cycles passed by them. I would invite this person to look at the Muchmore film because it picks up within a second or so from when Altgens took his photograph. Altgens photograph shows Mary and Jean's shadows barely reaching over the curb and onto the street, which is exactly what the Zapruder film shows. None of the assasination films show Moorman and Hill moving into or out of the street as the cycles pass by and Altgens #6 gives one a side view of just how close those cycles handbars come to the curb as they rode down Elm Street. I have pointed out many times that Moorman's camera is looking over the tops of the windshields of the cycle riders and that their known windshield hieght is 4" taller than Jack gives for Moorman's camera height. Jack doesn't say Moorman stood on a box while in the street, nor does he say that Hill laid on the ground so Mary could stand on Jean so she could get her camera higher than those cycles windshields, so how does Jack address this ... HE DOESN'T! How does Fetzer address this - HE DOESN'T! One day when I was in the plaza with Robert Groden and we were talking about how foolish this Moorman in the street claim was - we decided to shoot a Muchmore recreation shot to make a point about Mary and Jean's shoes being seen in Marie's film. You see, as Altgens #6 photograph shows, the hill slopes down to the curb and the curb drops another 8 to 9 inches. This means that for Hill and Moorman to be in the street and over that slope, plus the curb, their shoes could not possibly be seen from where Muchore stood. The recreation photos Robert and I shot with stand-ins proved this beyone any doubt. How did Jack address this - HE DIDN'T! How did Fetzer address this - HE DIDN'T. Jack White also had claimed that Jean Hill had said that she had goitten into the street and he used those words in support of his conclusion. Jack is correct - Jean did say she had gotten into the street. What Jack didn't tell the readers of his claim was that Jean stepped into the street as JFK had rounded the corner and she yelled at him to look her and Mary's direction. Jean was asked point blank on Black-Op radio about her stepping into the street and Jean said that she had gotten back up out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD SOUNDED. When Fetzer came on Lancer's forum in defense of his reputation, he was confronted with these type of errors involving the alteration claims in his book and Fetzer's reply was that he didn't consider himself responsible for the claims others made in his book. Moorman being said to have been in the street was in fact a claim that Fetzer had supported. Jack in turn posted recently, " I am distressed, however, when they hold a view that is unsound, and REFUSE to even consider the evidence to the contrary. What is to be gained by supporting the validity of the film?" Ironic that Jack says this dispite the evidence against him even told by the actual people who were there. Jack implies in his last sentence that he doesn't understand what's to be gained by supporting the validity of the Zapruder film, but I guess one could easily ask Jack what is to be gained by falsely claiming the Zapruder film is altered? Below is an overlay showing Jack and Fetzer's Moorman recreation photo against that of Moorman's. A cursory glance can tell someone that their camera was too low and too far east to be at the right place to get Moorman's position. Had they of gotten Moorman's location correct, then there would be no shifting taking place between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window. Yet despite what White says about how distressed he gets when reserahcers hold a view that is unsound ... he has and will continue doing the same thing despite the evidence showing that he was in error. It is great to show that there was a conspiracy and it is not the fact that Jack makes mistakes that bothers many of us. Instead it is the idea that he is willing to ignore the facts even if it means discrediting the witnesses to push a cllaim mthat he wants people to believe. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any! Just, trust me. Here David..sit...roll over..now play dead... White was wrong on this silly Moorman in the street claim...get over it. Your team lost that round. As for White having touched lots of images ... great. Iits really too bad he is so inept at dealing with issues photographic. You retouch the Moorman? Now thats a laugh. Based on your published works in the regard...well quite frankly Dave you simply suck at it. Bow wow! roflmfao, ROFLMFAO --- I'm as good at photo retouching as you're a photog --- I hire both - who needs to do retouching, I view results -- what we're seeing here Lurkers is "bent EGO" Oh please David don't flatter yourself, you've nothing to offer. Someones ego must be bent because you sure spend a LOT of time trying to defend an old man who has blown what some might call a reputation. But you David...put something on the table and then perhaps we can talk...so far you are nothing but hot air. Now go fetch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 having independently before (and posted so in another thread) found what Bill is showing here, I state that 'I confirm what Bill's gif shows is correct, placing photographer not as suggested by Jack et al.'. Just for the record, John, I have also verified that Bill's gif is correct. I recall your posting on this subject as well. I suspect that in no time, you and I will be branded "Lancer Disinformationalists" or "Bill Miller Flunkies" or be informed that we're "not qualified to have an opinion" or something of the like... No wonder the case hasn't been solved 42+ years later. for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing. FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL! "Looks like the DP eyewitness accounts are under attack... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts -- one can tell who the 'preservers of Dealey Plaza History' cheerleaders are -- Unfortunaltely for some, what they need to avoid, at ALL costs, is WCR testimony and the SBT...." David, While I find some of what you said to be probably true ... it too, is little more than cheerleading in itself. Now to address the person with actual evidence whose text was copied in your response ... Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman a couple of years ago what she thought about the "Moorman was in the street" claim and Mary said (according to Mark) that "it is silly". Mary told Mark that she was standing right where the Zapruder film shows her to be. This person whose text I'm referring to must not have read all the claims made within Jack's claim for Jack also said that Jean Hill was in the street with Mary when the cycles passed by them. I would invite this person to look at the Muchmore film because it picks up within a second or so from when Altgens took his photograph. Altgens photograph shows Mary and Jean's shadows barely reaching over the curb and onto the street, which is exactly what the Zapruder film shows. None of the assasination films show Moorman and Hill moving into or out of the street as the cycles pass by and Altgens #6 gives one a side view of just how close those cycles handbars come to the curb as they rode down Elm Street. I have pointed out many times that Moorman's camera is looking over the tops of the windshields of the cycle riders and that their known windshield hieght is 4" taller than Jack gives for Moorman's camera height. Jack doesn't say Moorman stood on a box while in the street, nor does he say that Hill laid on the ground so Mary could stand on Jean so she could get her camera higher than those cycles windshields, so how does Jack address this ... HE DOESN'T! How does Fetzer address this - HE DOESN'T! One day when I was in the plaza with Robert Groden and we were talking about how foolish this Moorman in the street claim was - we decided to shoot a Muchmore recreation shot to make a point about Mary and Jean's shoes being seen in Marie's film. You see, as Altgens #6 photograph shows, the hill slopes down to the curb and the curb drops another 8 to 9 inches. This means that for Hill and Moorman to be in the street and over that slope, plus the curb, their shoes could not possibly be seen from where Muchore stood. The recreation photos Robert and I shot with stand-ins proved this beyone any doubt. How did Jack address this - HE DIDN'T! How did Fetzer address this - HE DIDN'T. Jack White also had claimed that Jean Hill had said that she had goitten into the street and he used those words in support of his conclusion. Jack is correct - Jean did say she had gotten into the street. What Jack didn't tell the readers of his claim was that Jean stepped into the street as JFK had rounded the corner and she yelled at him to look her and Mary's direction. Jean was asked point blank on Black-Op radio about her stepping into the street and Jean said that she had gotten back up out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD SOUNDED. When Fetzer came on Lancer's forum in defense of his reputation, he was confronted with these type of errors involving the alteration claims in his book and Fetzer's reply was that he didn't consider himself responsible for the claims others made in his book. Moorman being said to have been in the street was in fact a claim that Fetzer had supported. Jack in turn posted recently, " I am distressed, however, when they hold a view that is unsound, and REFUSE to even consider the evidence to the contrary. What is to be gained by supporting the validity of the film?" Ironic that Jack says this dispite the evidence against him even told by the actual people who were there. Jack implies in his last sentence that he doesn't understand what's to be gained by supporting the validity of the Zapruder film, but I guess one could easily ask Jack what is to be gained by falsely claiming the Zapruder film is altered? Below is an overlay showing Jack and Fetzer's Moorman recreation photo against that of Moorman's. A cursory glance can tell someone that their camera was too low and too far east to be at the right place to get Moorman's position. Had they of gotten Moorman's location correct, then there would be no shifting taking place between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window. Yet despite what White says about how distressed he gets when reserahcers hold a view that is unsound ... he has and will continue doing the same thing despite the evidence showing that he was in error. It is great to show that there was a conspiracy and it is not the fact that Jack makes mistakes that bothers many of us. Instead it is the idea that he is willing to ignore the facts even if it means discrediting the witnesses to push a cllaim mthat he wants people to believe. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any! Just, trust me. Here David..sit...roll over..now play dead... White was wrong on this silly Moorman in the street claim...get over it. Your team lost that round. As for White having touched lots of images ... great. Iits really too bad he is so inept at dealing with issues photographic. You retouch the Moorman? Now thats a laugh. Based on your published works in the regard...well quite frankly Dave you simply suck at it. Bow wow! roflmfao, ROFLMFAO --- I'm as good at photo retouching as you're a photog --- I hire both - who needs to do retouching, I view results -- what we're seeing here Lurkers is "bent EGO" Oh please David don't flatter yourself, you've nothing to offer. Someones ego must be bent because you sure spend a LOT of time trying to defend an old man who has blown what some might call a reputation. But you David...put something on the table and then perhaps we can talk...so far you are nothing but hot air. Now go fetch... hang in there champ -- just the facts, man, just the facts. Go fetch ... lost your doggie, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherry Gutierrez Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 Hello Sherry - surely you won't mind pointing to ANY case where your *expert* blood spatter analysis was requested and you rendered same, based on film of the murder and the crime scene in real time? I'm curious to know the disposition of said case... Thanks, David Healy Hello David, I have provided below a number of cases that I have testified in as an expert in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis. In almost every case I have worked, the bloodstain patterns were analyzed from photographs of the crime scene. Sometimes I took or supervised the photos, but often I relied completely on still photographs and video tapes taken by other police agencies. This is a common occurance since few agencies have experts in this area working crime scenes for them. Many times the need for an expert in this field is not realized until the matter is in the hands of a prosecuting or defense attorney. So like many other experts, I may have been contacted months or even years after the incident occurred; requiring me to work exclusively from photographs. No case I worked had a videotape of the actual murder as it was carried out; this is part of what makes the Kennedy assassination unique. I was looking at just the static aftermath of the bloodshed. But I have witnessed many video tapes of bloody object being shot; and sadly, some of persons being shot. No case in which I have testified has been overturned because of my testimony; and I have had a death penalty case go to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The details of all the cases listed below are available via court records in each jurisdiction - including my testimony. 32nd Judicial District, Terrebonne Parish, LA; State v Marr 4/1992 27th Judicial District, St. Landry Parish, LA; State v Darjean 3/1994 13th Judicial District, Section A; Evangeline Parish, LA; State v Rubin 4/1994 17th Judicial District, Division C, Lafourche Parish; State v Whitted 6/1994 17th Judicial District, Division A, Lafourche Parish; State v Billiot; 7/1994 24th Judicial District, Division H, Jefferson Parish; State v Forrest 10/1994 25th Judicial District, Section I, Orleans Parish; State v Neville 3/1995 25th Judicial District, Section D, Orleans Parish; State v Lacaze 7/1995 8th Circuit District Court, Decauter Mississippi; State v DuPlantis 8/1995 15th Judicial District, Division D, Lafayette, LA, State v Campbell; 8/1995 25th Judicial District, Section C, New Orleans, LA; State v Jackson; 1995 US District, Eastern Louisiana Federal Court, Section M, Magistrate 4; Robertson v City of New Orleans & Kramer; 9/1995 2nd Circuit District Court, Quincy County, Florida; State v Blanchard;11/1995 15th Judicial District, Acadia Parish, LA; State v Burmaster; 4/1996 29th Judicial District, Division C; St. Charles Parish, LA; State v Curtis; 4/1996 25th Judicial District, Section A; Orleans Parish, LA; State v East; 8/1997 24th Judicial District, Division I; Jefferson Parish, LA; State v Jones; 12/1997 29th Judicial District, Division C; St. Charles Parish, LA; State v Hopkins; 6/1998 33rd Judicial District, Division A, Allen Parish, LA; State v Strother; 7/1999 9th Judicial District, Division B, Rapids Parish, LA; State v Magee; 8/2000 9th Judicial District, Division B, Rapids Parish, LA; State v Magee; 11/2001 2nd Circuit Court District, Gulfport, MS, State v Farve; 11/2001 25th Judicial District, Section A; Orleans Parish, LA; State v Bright; 2/2002 29th Judicial District, Division C; St. Charles Parish, LA; State v Amin; 3/2002 2nd Circuit Court District, Gulfport, MS, State v Farve; 9/2002 9th Judicial District, Division B, Rapids Parish, LA; State v Magee; 11/2002 9th Judicial District, Division B, Rapids Parish, LA; State v Magee; 1/2003 22nd Judicial District, Division A, St. Tammany Parish, LA; State v Adams; 7/2003 Thank you for the opportunity to expound on my qualifications, and to address the commonly accepted method of utilizing photographs and video tape in bloodstain pattern analysis. It both clarified a potential problem and underscored my qualifications for exposing the errors and inapt research of the writers of the web page JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake. Sincerely, Sherry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) 'Sherry Gutierrez' responded in bold: Appreciate your response, Sherry In ALL the cases posted below - the case photos became evidence, I assume. Which leads one to believe the photos had a clear chain of posession, yes? ?We don't have that with the Zapruder film, do we? If *your* crime scene photos (evidence) were called into question, for any reason - what's the result? and the answer to my question initial question is: "No case I worked had a videotape of the actual murder as it was carried out; this is part of what makes the Kennedy assassination unique." Unique? LOL! A understatement! So, if I understand you, you have NO experience with this kind of evidence - Limo washed and moved out of state -- which means NO blood spatter analysis in the limo. New territory for you, yes? Lest we forget, film resolution (8mm to 70mm=thousands of lines of resolution) much higher than videotape (large format videotape pre HD, 512 lines of resolution - VHS videotape 210 lines of resolution), AND not knowing what said Z-film dub pedegree or lineage is presents another entire set of problems for "blood" analysis, correct? Have you in your analysis run a color [rgb] gamma test on the frames including and immediately after Z-313? Would you be satisfied as a licensed investigator to evaluate a dub, of a dub, of a dub, of a dub, of a dub, of a dub (this is conservative number of "dubs when it comes to the Z-film").... and expect to render a "expert blood spatter analysis of a event that took place 40 feet in front of a 8mm camera lens? Request the camera original film, perform a 'supervised' blowup of frames from same, yes? BTW, your track record looks excellent -- I'd like your thoughts on how the Zapruder film was portrayed in the movie JFK? David Healy Edited February 20, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing. FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL! David, where were your concerns about camera originals whan Jack made his claim? These guys are` addressing the images that Jack used. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. While it is apparent that you know little about the evidence ... I think that if all you plan on doing is being a refere, then at least call them the same for both sides. [this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any! But yet you didn't bitch to Jack when he makes his claims by way of using photos that have no credibility in your view. Moorman says she was in the grass - Hill says she was back in the grass before the first sounded ... so do you think you can do damage control for Jack by talking lineage? Furthermore - the problems are not over the credibility of the photos, but rather the flaws in Jack's allegations and reconstructions. Bill Edited January 4, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing.FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL! David, where were your concerns about camera originals whan Jack made his claim? These guys are` addressing the images that Jack used. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. While it is apparent that you know little about the evidence ... I think that if all you plan on doing is being a refere, then at least call them the same for both sides. [this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any! But yet you didn't bitch to Jack when he makes his claims by way of using photos that have no credibility in your view. Moorman says he was in the grass - Hill says she was back in the grass before the first sounded ... so do you think you can do damage control for Jack by talking lineage? Furthermore - the problems are not over the credibility of the photos, but rather the flaws in Jack's allegations and reconstructions. Bill Bill you'll going to go a long way before you see or hear me say anything other than it's all "opinion" when it comes to the Z-film. Some have much more experience stating opinion and defining photo study performed. I have a tendency to listen to opinions from those with trackable experience, especially when it concerns format matter I understand and work with daily -- and quite frankly those belong to none other than Jack White and yes, Gary Mack! And I don't agree with either 100% of the time -- For the record, Mack has much more access to footage and probably knows more regarding lineage of any one piece of JFK related celluloid than anyone else in the country. Does that equate to knowledge of film or optical film printing techniques? Nope! There's no damage control, Bill -- How can there be damage control? You can't prove a damn thing - Jack can't prove anything and neither can I we don't have access to originals -- when it comes to educated guesses regarding still photography, my money's on Jack -- The issue is photo credibility, its always been photo credibility. What the hell do you think Zavada did DP film testing for? Who cared about full claw issues between 1967-1990? and WHY care? Edited February 20, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) I have a tendency to listen to opinions from those with trackable experience, especially when it concerns format matter I understand and work with daily -- and quite frankly those belong to none other than Jack White and yes, Gary Mack! And I don't agree with either 100% of the time According to you ... you have disagreed with Jack's claims of film and photo alteration 100% of the time for you have stated that you HAVE NOT seen proof of alteration. There's no damage control, Bill -- How can there be damage control? You can't prove a damn thing - Jack can't prove anything and neither can I we don't have access to originals -- when it comes to educated guesses regarding still photography, my money's on Jack -- The issue is photo credibility, its always been photo credibility. What the hell do you think Zavada did DP film testing for? Who cared about full claw issues between 1967-1990? and WHY care? There two issues here ... 1) If you are sincere in your beliefs, then apply them to Jack's post as well. 2) Even if all the photos and films were fake - the misreading of them is what Jack is being accused of and has nothing to do with their validity. Bill Edited February 20, 2006 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