Jump to content
The Education Forum

Old Costella errors still hanging around


Recommended Posts

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

Let the forum archive with your responses be all the evidence that I need .... everything said about you is a matter of forum record.

"Let justice be done though the Heavens fall"

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Let the forum archive with your responses be all the evidence that I need .... everything said about you is a matter of forum record.

"Let justice be done though the Heavens fall"

Bill Miller

shilling for Sherry, is not the way to go, champ. You think she's not old enough to answer herself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dhg: 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....

spg: David, to state you will discuss the issues ONLY if I prove or convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of

(1) the type of projectile used in the Kennedy assassination

(2) the number of projectiles that struck Kennedy

(3) location of shooter(s) in the Kennedy assassination

and that it all be completely "based on available DP photo's and film" is paramount to saying you won't discuss the issues. Who can meet that standard? Whay not just admit you won't discuss the issues?

dgh: when there's valid points of evidentary value I'll chime in with them -- what I see is pure opinion

spg: No, David, you are wrong. In my first post I offered sources to reference the documented information. Then, based upon the information, I offered an expert opinion. That is what experts to - they offer opinions.

dgh: nor will there be a peer review of "blood spatter analysis" -- just unsubstantiated best case single source opinion, period!

spg: David,

(1) my techniques were for analysis published in workbook form where reviewed in

1990 by the International Association for Identification prior to their approval of my being listed as a qualified intructor of this subject.

(2) I taught advance techniques in this subject to my peers during the years of 1990 - 1999; guess that should called "peer review"

(3) and before my first article was published, I had an expert in Canada review it for content.

(4) In 1995 Herbert MacDonnell reviewed by work on the Kennedy assassination and was in agreement with my findings. Now that, my friend is MAJOR "peer review".

So you are wrong, my work is NOT unsubstantiated, not a single source opinion, and has been peer reviewed.

dgh: 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.

spg: I am not presenting this information during that time slot. And, this can be understood by even simple minded persons. But, only if they read the published information - why won't you do that, David?

Warm regards,

Sherry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Work that asked to be taken seriously must be researched in depth to assure all facets of the matter in question are considered. When addressing an investigation you can not start with a pre-disposed idea (like the Zapruder film is altered) and search for supporting evidence. You must uncover and expose all information possible and then form conclusions based upon your findings.

If we know something to be in error are we to just ignore it? For years, this community sought experts in various fields to enter the research of the Kennedy assassination. But, if their findings are in opposition to long held, and vested theories - what shall we do? Find someone else to present themselves as an opposing expert, even if the person selected is not experienced or even well read in the subject at hand? That's what I think happened with John Costella; because the scientific basis for information contained at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html the JFK Assassination Film Hoax part 7 - The Blood Mistake is incorrect.

It is very misleading, and borderline unethical to insinuate scientific work when there has been none. Even a casual read through forensic topics for high school students on the internet would disprove most of the erroneous claims on this page. Moreover, there are numerous publications available that address this subject and collaborate my statements. Or, perhaps the writers could publish their credentials for making such wild claims. Since one necessary component for using scientific material as evidence is that the results of testing are consistent and reproducible; perhaps their study and results could be published so we can see how they come to conclusions hundreds of other bloodspatter experts would be at odds with.

I encourage all researchers to thoroughly investigate this subject to determine the validity of their claims. And I encourage the writers and publishers of JFK Assassination Film Hoax: The Blood Mistake to reconsider the contents of that page. The excuse that Costella can not make corrections to his work is ridiculous, and if true – then just remove the page. Because if you allow that to go uncorrected, I’ll have to wonder what else might be incorrect that you knowingly allow to stand? In fact, can anything you publish be trusted?

Here are the claims made and my

JFK Assassination Film Hoax: Part 7 - The Blood Mistake

Hoax Claim:

“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.

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

In the years 1969 to 1971, Herbert L MacDonnell did research for the government under the Department of Justice. In 1971, the U.S. Department of Justice published his work as Flight Characteristics and Stain Patterns of Human Blood. Shortly after that publication, MacDonnell began teaching this investigative tool to law enforcement officers, prompting an interest in the characteristics of shed blood and how it related to crime scenes. Prior to this, most publications addressed only the most general of characteristics of spatter analysis. Therefore, even if the technology to fake the blood spatter in the Zapruder film existed, the knowledge of what it would look like and how fast it traveled did not.

Hoax Claim:

The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! “

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

Since 1983 I have been actively involved in the study and recreation of bloodstain pattern created as a result of high velocity impact. This type of analysis is founded in physics and mathematics and based on the study of research performed by many criminalists. Data collection by experts in this field is accomplished by shooting through a variety of samples of whole human blood at a series of distances and with a wide diversity of projectile calibers.

Videotape is routinely used to capture the results of the bullets passing through the bloody targets. The blood used in all cases is whole human blood. Currently videotape records approximately 30 frames per second. This speed videotape utilizes approximately 4-5 frames to capture forceful impact pattern when a low velocity, large caliber projectile with a high KE rate impacts a large volume of blood. This means a pattern is created in its entirety in 1/6 of a second; faster projectiles result in patterns being created in less than 1/6 of a second. The Zapruder film was recorded at approximately 18 frames per second. If blood is observed in 3 frames that would mean the pattern was created and dissipated in a time frame of 1/6th of a second - a time frame consistent with patterns created with a high velocity projectile. This timeframe for a pattern being created and dissipating is reproducible and consistent. A lead weight falling is being acted upon by gravity; blood expelled from a wound is forcefully expressed and moves much faster.

Hoax Claim:

The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314.

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

When filming, Zapruder’s camera captured 18.3 frames each second, but not everything that occurred was captured, since spatter can be expelled between frames and/or travel outside the area recorded before being captured by the camera. In frame 313 there is an object believed to be bone or tissue traveling from the President’s head in an upward and forward direction. Bone fragments and pieces of tissue are commonly found in forward spatter. This object is traveling fast enough for approximately 5 feet of movement to have been recorded in one frame equaling 1/18th of a second in duration. This is a good visual demonstration of the speed of forward spatter as it is leaving the exit wound at over 160 feet per second. At that speed, forward spatter could be created and move out of the area being photographed faster than the speed of the film could record it. The size of the forward spatter must also be considered. The majority less than of the droplets would have a diameter of 1 mm. If the detail

The velocity and volume of the blood leaving the impact site as backspatter has much less velocity than blood leaving exit wounds as forward spatter; and the backspatter droplets only travel about 3-4 feet from the source. When Bill Newman described the blood visible in front of the President’s face, it he said it was like a mist. Back spatter does not travel more than 3 or 4 feet and is often described as a multitude of minuscule blood droplets that resemble an atomized spray or mist.

Hoax Claim:

The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. But even if the blood could have, where would it have ended up? It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all:

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

In addition to this single frame of the Zapruder film, there are other sources available to determine if blood was present either within or outside the Limo. Consider the following statements documenting blood landing both within and outside the limo.

Nellie Connally; from Nellie Connally: That Day in Dallas by Robert R. Rees.

"I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot. My eyes saw bloody matter in tiny bits all over the car."

Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman, Special Agent, Secret Service beginning at 2H61; Agent Kellerman was in the right front seat of the Presidential limo.

Mr. Kellerman: Senator, between all the matter that was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over.

Senator Cooper: What was that?

Mr. Kellerman: Body matter; flesh.

Mr. Specter: When did you first notice the substance which you have described as body matter?

Mr. Kellerman: When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat.

Robert A. Frazier testimony, Feb 21st and 22nd 1969, Criminal District Court Parish of Orleans State of Louisiana State Of Louisiana Vs. Clay L. Shaw 198-059 1426 Section "C"

"We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area."

ABC Television station WFAA reporter Bill Lord

In an interview with Chaney stated that he was "riding on the right rear fender" of JFK's limo during the shooting, and that "the President was struck in the face" by the second shot. Lord ended the interview by telling the audience that "[Chaney] was so close his uniform was splattered with blood".

Officer William Joseph "B J" Martin Warren Commission Testimony

Mr. BALL: Did you notice any stains on your helmet?

Mr. MARTIN: Yes, sir; during the process of working traffic there, I noticed that there were blood stains on the windshield, on my motor, and then I pulled off my helmet and I noticed there were blood stains on the left side of my helmet.

Clint Hill 3/9/1964 Warren Commission Testimony of Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (H 2 132-44)

"There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car."

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. 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 the International Association for Identification subcommittee for bloodstain pattern evidence, and have presented at international and state conferences for that organization. I was also 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 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.

Last time I ask for this to be corrected, I answered alot of questions with as much detail as possible, and as graciously as I could. Finally the post failed because the Costella supporters gave up. Since their opposing views are often rebutted with " show me your expert or shut up" attitude I'm not jumping throught the same hoops this time. Just make the corrections or pull the page.

Nice post Sherry. And great poise and resilence in the face of some of your attackers. New to the board here, but I have already stated several times that I am an "eyes only" guy, not much into photometrics, that type of thing. Not entirely true but that's another topic. I don't really understand all the hubbub over the blood spray disappearing in one (1) frame. It doesn't. Have a look at (of all things) Costella's combined edit. Blood spray remains in the air through 316. Even 317, if you look to the right of the First Lady's face, in front of her left shoulder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bumped for Dr. Costella.

LMFAO you're a year and a half late champ! Is it any wonder Roland Zavada said he did not need your assistance.... :blink:

I don’t know what you’re cackling about David (but then again I seldom do) after a 3+ year absence Costella reappeared here a few days ago. Why would I bump a thread for the benefit of an inactive member? AFAICR Rollie Zavada never asked me for my assistance nor "said he did not need" it.

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...