JFK Lancer's November In Dallas Conference

[Dawn Meredith]

BM whinned on

[...]

If you talked at Fetzerfest like you do on this forum, then I have to wonder if there was anyone there who was capable of noticing your vocabulary mistakes. I know that where I went to school - even the kids who rode the little bus knew better than to use a word like "use" for the word "you's" ... yet you continue to do it even after you've been told about it. Maybe Fetzer was happy to just get whoever he could - I only know that in Dallas they seem to frown on speakers who haven't at least mastered the English language better than what you've done.

dgh01: perhaps thar's other **fish-to-fry** in the worldwide scheme of things? -- One thing for sure, whatever came out of the book HOAX, it's kept the reich-wing whinners real busy for months and now well over a year -- the more **youse guy's** drone on about it, the more folks question  the Z-film, and its authenticity.

Someday, don't know when, you'll see a DVD of the preceedings, David Lifton was GREAT, btw.

When it comes to photo analysis, your bush [pardon the pun] league, Bill. But keep trying! We all love a bit of comedic relief...

... your welcome, don't mention it!

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr Healy,

If you want to convince anyone there was not film alteration (and I don't even get involved in that argument as I think the issue of WHO KILLED JFK is the one we are here for)- you truly would be more convincing if you used proper English.

Why are you both using this forum for this stupid argument anyway? We can all read the book on this subject and decide for ourselves. This is what spreaders of disinformation always do: promote silly arguments to keep peoples' minds of the real issues. I don't know if this is the case with you and Bill, but it is really annoying, nonetheless.

I am also finding Nancy's posts hard to read, Nancy you seem very intelligent, are you a foreign language speaker? I do not mean this to insult you, I just have to read your posts several times to understand them.

thanks,

Dawn

[Bill Miller]

Why are you both using this forum for this stupid argument anyway? We can all read the book on this subject and decide for ourselves. This is what spreaders of disinformation always do: promote silly arguments to keep peoples' minds  of the real issues. I don't know if this is the case with you and Bill, but it is really annoying,  nonetheless.

Dawn

Dawn - I take it you have not followed many JFK assassination forums. What happens is there are a select few who never have any evidence to present in support of their opinions - they just make silly say-nothing-post because in their minds they think that makes up for what they don't know about the case. I mean ... who in their right mind would keep telling people to go buy a book that declares Zfilm alteration that they have already said how it didn't offer them anything that would prove the Zapruder film to be altered? How far would you get as an attorney if you only told the jury what you were going to show concerning someone's guilt or innocence, but actually never did it. I don't go back and forth with Healy as if to be arguing with him because he offers no evidence to argue about. I do it so to let people see the mindset of some so-called researchers who promote a conclusion when in reality they have little to no knowledge of the case and to show how far they'll go without ever really trying to learn the evidence surrounding Kennedy's murder.

[Dawn Meredith]

Why are you both using this forum for this stupid argument anyway? We can all read the book on this subject and decide for ourselves. This is what spreaders of disinformation always do: promote silly arguments to keep peoples' minds  of the real issues. I don't know if this is the case with you and Bill, but it is really annoying,  nonetheless.

Dawn

Dawn - I take it you have not followed many JFK assassination forums. What happens is there are a select few who never have any evidence to present in support of their opinions - they just make silly say-nothing-post because in their minds they think that makes up for what they don't know about the case. I mean ... who in their right mind would keep telling people to go buy a book that declares Zfilm alteration that they have already said how it didn't offer them anything that would prove the Zapruder film to be altered? How far would you get as an attorney if you only told the jury what you were going to show concerning someone's guilt or innocence, but actually never did it. I don't go back and forth with Healy as if to be arguing with him because he offers no evidence to argue about. I do it so to let people see the mindset of some so-called researchers who promote a conclusion when in reality they have little to no knowledge of the case and to show how far they'll go without ever really trying to learn the evidence surrounding Kennedy's murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bill,

I do not know if there was alteration to the Z film or not, when I tried to read about Assassination Science several years back I could not follow the long email I was reading. Then I attempted to read a friend's review of this book and I could not follow that either. As I recall it was just not very well written and went off on so many tangents and personal infighting stuff that it made comprehension of what the book was actually about almost impossible. I have not discussed it with this friend since. Perhaps at some point I will, but, as I told him then (94?) "if the Z film was altered why would they leave in the headshot"? So I just leave it there.

No, this is my first forum and while I find it to be extremely interesting, again all the personal infighting is hard to follow.. You need a roadmap. And I am personally not interested in peoples' infighting. Having known members of the research community now since the early 70's I am VERY TIRED of all the infighting I have seen over these long years. I want to see progress on the case and unity in this small world of "critical research". But sadly there are some with a personal agenda, so one has to be most careful. That is one of the main reasons I have not ever gone on forums.

With that said, I do believe that there is much valuable work being done on this forum. So I try to just skin thru the garbage.

At some point I would be interested in hearing concise argument for and against film alteration. If such a thing can be done in a clear and concise manner. I have read Fetzer on other matters and he is very clear. Maybe I will just get the book.

Dawn

e

[David G. Healy]

Dawn penned

[...]

At some point I would be interested in hearing concise argument for and against film alteration. If such a thing can be done in a clear and concise manner. I have read Fetzer on other matters and he is very clear. Maybe I will just get the book.

dgh01: Good idea, time permitting you might even read my chapter in that very same book... As for Bill Miller-Peters, eh, he needs to have his knuckles rapped every now and then, someone to remind him that he's the new kid on the block -- ego's way to LARGE. You'll notice if you follow some of his nonsense...

David Healy

Author [that really ticks Miller-Peters off, roflmao]

[David G. Healy]

whoops.... see below

Edited November 12, 2004 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

Dawn wrote:

[...]

If you want to convince anyone there was not film alteration (and I don't even get involved in that argument as I think the issue of WHO KILLED JFK is the one we are here for) you truly would be more convincing if you used proper English.

[...]

dgh01: Contrary to public opinion, Ms. Dawn, I'm not in the business of convincing the general public, you or Mr. Miller-Peters of Z-film alteration. I'm public enemy number TEN [amongst excellent company, I might add] when it comes to the Preservers of History, or I should say preservers of slanted viewpoints of history regarding  events as they played out in Dallas Texas, Nov '63.

As to WHO killed JFK? When you find out, drop me a line, I've been at it for 35 years, not a clue -- just a fair conclusion that LHO wasn't the only dude in Dealey Plaza with a rifle, if in FACT he even touched a long rifle, that day...

I'm here for many reasons Ms. Dawn, not in the least is keeping an eye on the information [or disinformation and there's plenty of that here and other forums]  regarding the Zapruder film and "possible alteration of same".

If you want to beat a drum on the issue, send a email to the Sixth Floor Museum requesting forensics testing for the original optical print in their possesion...

As for my English, hey what can I say. It was good enough for Dr. Fetzer, good enough for here and certainly on the level of a Miller-Peters. Darn ole 4 year Jesuit schools -- don't teach you nuth'in, Im-a guess'in, I know, I know, must be that liberal media bias not to mention, George Bush who told me so... as to Miller-Peters, he can spin Adobe Photoshop tales ALL day, how do you spell, amateur...?

Have a nice stay at John Simkin's Education Forum, they've done a hell of a job, one of these day's I'm going to have a look around the other subject matter...

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited November 12, 2004 by David G. Healy

[Al Carrier]

Dawn,

I understand your displeasure with the in-fighting and I can sympathize with you on it and am guilty of it myself as much as anyone else. Professor Jim Fetzer and David Healey came on Lancer Forum a year or so ago to promote the new book and Bill challenged them on their findings of film alteration professionally and initially with respect. Fetzer hummed and hawed around and delayed responding and promised a response to the challenges that he never provided. Healey simply lashed out at Bill Miller and never addressed the issues.

Bill Miller and I have butted heads on numerous occasions, but I still respect him as much as I do any researcher out there. We get nasty with each other through personal e-mail now and try to keep it professional on open forums. Although I have disagreed with Bill on some key issues, I still respect his opinion and how he came to terms with his stance.

To term Bill an amatuer in photographic analysis is an example of the credibility of Healey and his associates. If he can disprove Bill's challenges, then why doesn'the do so and instead of attacking the man?

Al

[John Simkin]

No,  this is my first forum and while I find it to be extremely interesting, again all the personal infighting is hard to follow.. You need a roadmap. And I am personally not interested in peoples' infighting. Having known members of the research community now since the early 70's I am VERY TIRED of all the infighting I have seen over these long years. I want to see progress on the case and unity in this small world of "critical research".  But sadly there are some with a personal agenda, so one has to be most careful. That is one of the main reasons I have not ever gone on forums. 

With that said, I do believe that there is much valuable work being done on this forum. So I try to just skin thru the garbage.

Dawn, this is one of the most important postings made on this forum. Hopefully, people will take note of what you are saying. I fear that will not be the case.

I am fairly new to the investigation on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Although I have been interested in the case since it happened, I only began serious research about a year ago. This involved me joining two forums on the subject: JFK Lancer and JFKresearch. It did not take me long to be upset by the terrible in-fighting that took place on these forums. This is in no way a criticism of the two people who run these two forums: Debra Conway and Richard J. DellaRosa. In fact, they make sterling efforts to keep their members from insulting each other. But it is an impossible job when you have certain individuals who appear to be determined to abuse others.

I believe forums have tremendous potential for carrying out effective academic research. As I have said elsewhere, forums allows you to link brains together. In this way it allows you to create what has been called “collective intelligence” or “community intelligence”. This is the reason why I established this forum. I thought I could bring together researchers with a wide variety of different information and expertise in order to work together to break this case. In many ways it has been a great success. We now have a fairly large group of researchers who are willing to share their information on the assassination. Although this group do not always agree, they respect each others opinions and never resort to personal abuse.

However, we do have a small minority of members who are very quick to make attacks on people they disagree with. As I believe passionately in the idea of free speech I have so far only resorted to censorship on one occasion. Instead I emailed the offenders and told them to treat their opponents with respect. In some cases this has worked. In too many cases it has not. This has resulted in some members becoming disillusioned with this forum. Some have become less active in the debate, fearing that their comments might receive an abusive response.

I now feel that we have got to the stage where I have to take action. My primary concern is to retain the membership of the important researchers. If this means I will have to lose the membership of those who appear to be playing a negative role on this forum, so be it. Therefore, if members continue to make abusive comments about other members, I will delete these posts and ban them from the forum.

As most of you know, I am organizing an online conference on the JFK assassination during the week 21st November – 27th November.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1891

We have a very impressive collection of contributors. If we all get involved in the debates that take place, we shall produce a tremendous resource for future JFK researchers. As I don’t know of anything similar taking place on the web I think we might be making history. We might also be producing a model for people working in other fields.

The contributors, like all academic researchers, have differing views of the topic. I expect all those posting in these threads to act like people do in a university seminar. Hopefully we will get healthy debate. But be warned. I will not tolerate abusive comments aimed at individuals. At all times you must concentrate on the evidence, not on the motivation or personality of the poster. If you do not abide by this rule, you will have your posts deleted and your membership suspended.

[Dawn Meredith]

No,  this is my first forum and while I find it to be extremely interesting, again all the personal infighting is hard to follow.. You need a roadmap. And I am personally not interested in peoples' infighting. Having known members of the research community now since the early 70's I am VERY TIRED of all the infighting I have seen over these long years. I want to see progress on the case and unity in this small world of "critical research".  But sadly there are some with a personal agenda, so one has to be most careful. That is one of the main reasons I have not ever gone on forums. 

With that said, I do believe that there is much valuable work being done on this forum. So I try to just skin thru the garbage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dawn, this is one of the most important postings made on this forum. Hopefully, people will take note of what you are saying. I fear that will not be the case.

I am fairly new to the investigation on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Although I have been interested in the case since it happened, I only began serious research about a year ago. This involved me joining two forums on the subject: JFK Lancer and JFKresearch. It did not take me long to be upset by the terrible in-fighting that took place on these forums. This is in no way a criticism of the two people who run these two forums: Debra Conway and Richard J. DellaRosa. In fact, they make sterling efforts to keep their members from insulting each other. But it is an impossible job when you have certain individuals who appear to be determined to abuse others.

I believe forums have tremendous potential for carrying out effective academic research. As I have said elsewhere, forums allows you to link brains together. In this way it allows you to create what has been called “collective intelligence” or “community intelligence”. This is the reason why I established this forum. I thought I could bring together researchers with a wide variety of different information and expertise in order to work together to break this case. In many ways it has been a great success. We now have a fairly large group of researchers who are willing to share their information on the assassination. Although this group do not always agree, they respect each others opinions and never resort to personal abuse.

However, we do have a small minority of members who are very quick to make attacks on people they disagree with. As I believe passionately in the idea of free speech I have so far only resorted to censorship on one occasion. Instead I emailed the offenders and told them to treat their opponents with respect. In some cases this has worked. In too many cases it has not. This has resulted in some members becoming disillusioned with this forum. Some have become less active in the debate, fearing that their comments might receive an abusive response.

I now feel that we have got to the stage where I have to take action. My primary concern is to retain the membership of the important researchers. If this means I will have to lose the membership of those who appear to be playing a negative role on this forum, so be it. Therefore, if members continue to make abusive comments about other members, I will delete these posts and ban them from the forum.

As most of you know, I am organizing an online conference on the JFK assassination during the week 21st November – 27th November.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1891

We have a very impressive collection of contributors. If we all get involved in the debates that take place, we shall produce a tremendous resource for future JFK researchers. As I don’t know of anything similar taking place on the web I think we might be making history. We might also be producing a model for people working in other fields.

The contributors, like all academic researchers, have differing views of the topic. I expect all those posting in these threads to act like people do in a university seminar. Hopefully we will get healthy debate. But be warned. I will not tolerate abusive comments aimed at individuals. At all times you must concentrate on the evidence, not on the motivation or personality of the poster. If you do not abide by this rule, you will have your posts deleted and your membership suspended.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

Thank you, I too hope others will utilize this wonderful furum you have provided to advance the case. I see this happening in other threads and it is MOST exciting. For someone like myself who has read books on this case now my whole life, I LOVE this interactive approach: Seeing new avenues explored by various researchers, then added to by the next poster, actually LEADING somewhere, gives me a sense of new hope not felt since the early days of HSCA.

This case has always brought out in peole the need to disagree, sometimes to the point where the fights become so deep people never speak again. I have been in the middle of such battles many times and it is literally like having two family members suddenly just stop speaking. I always try to reconcile these warring factions but usually have been unsuccessful. It never ceases to sadden me. In some cases the people fighting had been working togehter for years.

The forums are different, lots of ego, where everyone wants their point to be number one, when it needs to be a collective sharing toward one goal: solving this case. Leaving a TRUE history for our children and grandchildren. They are not going to get it from the history texts or the media.

I for one thank you for providing this forum and hope that it grows in your above-stated purpose. Advancing the truth about who killed JFK, and why, and who truly runs the current government of this country.

Dawn

[David G. Healy]

Dawn,

I understand your displeasure with the in-fighting and I can sympathize with you on it and am guilty of it myself as much as anyone else. Professor Jim Fetzer and David Healey came on Lancer Forum a year or so ago to promote the new book and Bill challenged them on their findings of film alteration professionally and initially with respect. Fetzer hummed and hawed around and delayed responding and promised a response to the challenges that he never provided. Healey simply lashed out at Bill Miller and never addressed the issues.

dgh01: "lashed out?" evidently Carrier, you failed to see the URL's posted here on several ocassions that might give you pause. What you can read on those URL'S addressed every particle of debate regarding possible - Healy, and 'alteration', Costella's  scenarios

-- and for God sakes that's, H E A L Y for the 19th time, Carrier -- btw, I did not post during that pre 2003 Lancer debate conflagration, brought out ALL the disinfo specialists, though -- Dr. John Costella's work and contribution to HOAX remains "untouched"

Bill Miller and I have butted heads on numerous occasions, but I still respect him as much as I do any researcher out there. We get nasty with each other through personal e-mail now and try to keep it professional on open forums. Although I have disagreed with Bill on some key issues, I still respect his opinion and how he came to terms with his stance.

To term Bill an amatuer in photographic analysis is an example of the credibility of Healey

dgh01: Is he a Professional in this arena? Now that is news ! I heard he's a cartoonist... That's H E A L Y for the 20th time, Carrier -- so much for your credibility as a investigator tsk-tsk...

and his associates. If he can disprove Bill's challenges, then why doesn'the do so and instead of attacking the man?

dgh01: ah, challenges to opinions from someone with NO credibility in the motion grafics industry?  Based on amateur use of photo alteration/manipulation tools on imagery with NO published/documented provanence of imagery his ideas are based on? See how far that would get anyone in a US court of LAW? He can buy the book.

Stick with the cop stuff Al, your pretty good there -- your out of your league with this photo subject matter... just my opinion of course!

[/b]

Al

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Al Carrier]

Dawn,

I understand your displeasure with the in-fighting and I can sympathize with you on it and am guilty of it myself as much as anyone else. Professor Jim Fetzer and David Healey came on Lancer Forum a year or so ago to promote the new book and Bill challenged them on their findings of film alteration professionally and initially with respect. Fetzer hummed and hawed around and delayed responding and promised a response to the challenges that he never provided. Healey simply lashed out at Bill Miller and never addressed the issues.

dgh01: "lashed out?" evidently Carrier, you failed to see the URL's posted here on several ocassions that might give you pause. What you can read on those URL'S addressed every particle of debate regarding possible - Healy, and 'alteration', Costella's  scenarios

-- and for God sakes that's, H E A L Y for the 19th time, Carrier -- btw, I did not post during that pre 2003 Lancer debate conflagration, brought out ALL the disinfo specialists, though -- Dr. John Costella's work and contribution to HOAX remains "untouched"

Bill Miller and I have butted heads on numerous occasions, but I still respect him as much as I do any researcher out there. We get nasty with each other through personal e-mail now and try to keep it professional on open forums. Although I have disagreed with Bill on some key issues, I still respect his opinion and how he came to terms with his stance.

To term Bill an amatuer in photographic analysis is an example of the credibility of Healey

dgh01: Is he a Professional in this arena? Now that is news ! I heard he's a cartoonist... That's H E A L Y for the 20th time, Carrier -- so much for your credibility as a investigator tsk-tsk...

and his associates. If he can disprove Bill's challenges, then why doesn'the do so and instead of attacking the man?

dgh01: ah, challenges to opinions from someone with NO credibility in the motion grafics industry?  Based on amateur use of photo alteration/manipulation tools on imagery with NO published/documented provanence of imagery his ideas are based on? See how far that would get anyone in a US court of LAW? He can buy the book.

Stick with the cop stuff Al, your pretty good there -- your out of your league with this photo subject matter... just my opinion of course!

[/b]

Al

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David HEALY,

I am well aware by now how to spell your name as it is presnet when I post replies. I add the "e" to bring out your best side, you just haven't figured that out yet.

Cop Stuff? As a CSI, I have entered photos and films into evidence in trial against professional defense attorney's to depict the reality of a crime scene. I have shot crime scenes in pure darkness using a manually opened aperature and fill lighting by walking a strobe through it without overexposure in a block long crime scene. I do have a little background on photography and filming and can work magic that does not require alteration.

Other than bringing up the "man in the back of the pick-up", "the Zapruder Sitzman waltz" and, well, I will leave it at that, I need not address amature standings in film altercation. I will stand by Bill Miller as he is objective from a basic standpoint and beyond. The basics are simple. How do you explain the confirmation on authenticity of the films you prescribe as being altered by way of other films and photos showing consistencies? You know which ones I am talking about as Bill has pounding it through on Lancer without response. These films and photos were released immediately without opportunity to intercept and alter.

Sorry, but I and Bill live in the real world and understand how to challenge through cross examination. Many of you just spout off findings as you are used the workings of the WC and HSCA that did not allow cross challenging of evidence.

Al

[Bill Miller]

Sorry, but I and Bill live in the real world and understand how to challenge through cross examination. Many of you just spout off findings as you are used the workings of the WC and HSCA that did not allow cross challenging of evidence.

Healy has made enough replies on this forum to equal the text of one Commission volume, but has not cited enough evidence to fill one side of a packet of 'sweet n' low'. He tells people to buy a book claiming the Zapruder film is a hoax when he has read it himself and has since said that he has not seen anything that would prove the Zapruder film to be a hoax. His only position it seems is that while he has seen nothing to show the Zapruder film to be altered - he has not seen anything that proves it is the camera original, thus it's not been proven to be unaltered. That argument can be made for every photo or film taken in history and is a silly position to take.

[David G. Healy]

Dawn,

I understand your displeasure with the in-fighting and I can sympathize with you on it and am guilty of it myself as much as anyone else. Professor Jim Fetzer and David Healey came on Lancer Forum a year or so ago to promote the new book and Bill challenged them on their findings of film alteration professionally and initially with respect. Fetzer hummed and hawed around and delayed responding and promised a response to the challenges that he never provided. Healey simply lashed out at Bill Miller and never addressed the issues.

dgh01: "lashed out?" evidently Carrier, you failed to see the URL's posted here on several ocassions that might give you pause. What you can read on those URL'S addressed every particle of debate regarding possible - Healy, and 'alteration', Costella's  scenarios

-- and for God sakes that's, H E A L Y for the 19th time, Carrier -- btw, I did not post during that pre 2003 Lancer debate conflagration, brought out ALL the disinfo specialists, though -- Dr. John Costella's work and contribution to HOAX remains "untouched"

Bill Miller and I have butted heads on numerous occasions, but I still respect him as much as I do any researcher out there. We get nasty with each other through personal e-mail now and try to keep it professional on open forums. Although I have disagreed with Bill on some key issues, I still respect his opinion and how he came to terms with his stance.

To term Bill an amatuer in photographic analysis is an example of the credibility of Healey

dgh01: Is he a Professional in this arena? Now that is news ! I heard he's a cartoonist... That's H E A L Y for the 20th time, Carrier -- so much for your credibility as a investigator tsk-tsk...

and his associates. If he can disprove Bill's challenges, then why doesn'the do so and instead of attacking the man?

dgh01: ah, challenges to opinions from someone with NO credibility in the motion grafics industry?  Based on amateur use of photo alteration/manipulation tools on imagery with NO published/documented provanence of imagery his ideas are based on? See how far that would get anyone in a US court of LAW? He can buy the book.

Stick with the cop stuff Al, your pretty good there -- your out of your league with this photo subject matter... just my opinion of course!

[/b]

I am well aware by now how to spell your name as it is presnet when I post replies. I add the "e" to bring out your best side, you just haven't figured that out yet.

dgh02: well thanks Al, you do read -- your not Irish Al, you can dispense with the feeble humor. And for the record, Al -- direct me to a URL or archive where I can see LANCER posts attributed to me, or by me during the Lancer - HOAX debate of Nov'03. I didn't post, my predetermined position during that fiasco, as a contributor to the book was, NOT to post. Sorry, no cigar, AL.

Cop Stuff? As a CSI, I have entered photos and films into evidence in trial against professional defense attorney's to depict the reality of a crime scene. I have shot crime scenes in pure darkness using a manually opened aperature and fill lighting by walking a strobe through it without overexposure in a block long crime scene. I do have a little background on photography and filming and can work magic that does not require alteration.

dgh02: Fill light, magic? come on Al, that one won't help your resume

Other than bringing up the "man in the back of the pick-up", "the Zapruder Sitzman waltz" and, well, I will leave it at that, I need not address amature standings in film altercation. I will stand by Bill Miller as he is objective from a basic standpoint and beyond.

dgh02: well, maybe in all the sleuthing and photography you've done in the past, you can tell us amateurs what **photo** and/or distinguishing marks **identify** Abraham Zapruder as ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER standing on the DP pedestal -- you know, a criminal court kinda question? Other than,

"...well, he's about the same height, or someone told me it was him..."

The basics are simple. How do you explain the confirmation on authenticity of the films you prescribe as being altered by way of other films and photos showing consistencies?

dgh02: great question, Al. BTW, who has authenticated any of these films? Can you tell us, who on the Warren Commission even SAW the camera original film? As to the simple amateur photo sleuthing stuff, Bill Miller said he was going to show just that, the seamlessness of ALL DP films, [that's a Dr. TinkThompson term btw]... about 3 maybe 4 years ago. Pretty simple process to do actually, wonder why he didn't? Maybe GaryM wouldn't let him have access to early generation films, perhaps. Or maybe he just CAN'T! Maybe you can give him a hand...?[/b]

You know which ones I am talking about as Bill has pounding it through on Lancer without response. These films and photos were released immediately without opportunity to intercept and alter.

dgh02: nonsense, the 'other' films aren't important at the moment, the camera original, or what passes as the camera original Z-film Al, and the Moorman5 thats what is important -- the rest are supporting cast members, a sideshow if you will -- let's go for the real enchilada

Sorry, but I and Bill live in the real world and understand how to challenge through cross examination. Many of you just spout off findings as you are used the workings of the WC and HSCA that did not allow cross challenging of evidence.

dgh02: I see --- pardon me, ROFL!

"Spout off findings," ah, those are published findings -- and research Officer Carrier, research, real world stuff -- seems to me, all I hear from the non-Z-film alteration camp-side of the photo/film analysis debate is, ENVY!

As to evidence; WHAT evidence? Is a trial underway? Research and Opinion, published in book form and archived... Now, if one wanted to do a little evidence gathering, how about forensic testing on a 2 frames of the alledged camera original Zapruder film, AND the 3 [minimum] 1st generation optical print

[David G. Healy]

Dawn,

I understand your displeasure with the in-fighting and I can sympathize with you on it and am guilty of it myself as much as anyone else. Professor Jim Fetzer and David Healey came on Lancer Forum a year or so ago to promote the new book and Bill challenged them on their findings of film alteration professionally and initially with respect. Fetzer hummed and hawed around and delayed responding and promised a response to the challenges that he never provided. Healey simply lashed out at Bill Miller and never addressed the issues.

dgh01: "lashed out?" evidently Carrier, you failed to see the URL's posted here on several ocassions that might give you pause. What you can read on those URL'S addressed every particle of debate regarding possible - Healy, and 'alteration', Costella's  scenarios

-- and for God sakes that's, H E A L Y for the 19th time, Carrier -- btw, I did not post during that pre 2003 Lancer debate conflagration, brought out ALL the disinfo specialists, though -- Dr. John Costella's work and contribution to HOAX remains "untouched"

Bill Miller and I have butted heads on numerous occasions, but I still respect him as much as I do any researcher out there. We get nasty with each other through personal e-mail now and try to keep it professional on open forums. Although I have disagreed with Bill on some key issues, I still respect his opinion and how he came to terms with his stance.

To term Bill an amatuer in photographic analysis is an example of the credibility of Healey

dgh01: Is he a Professional in this arena? Now that is news ! I heard he's a cartoonist... That's H E A L Y for the 20th time, Carrier -- so much for your credibility as a investigator tsk-tsk...

and his associates. If he can disprove Bill's challenges, then why doesn'the do so and instead of attacking the man?

dgh01: ah, challenges to opinions from someone with NO credibility in the motion grafics industry?  Based on amateur use of photo alteration/manipulation tools on imagery with NO published/documented provanence of imagery his ideas are based on? See how far that would get anyone in a US court of LAW? He can buy the book.

Stick with the cop stuff Al, your pretty good there -- your out of your league with this photo subject matter... just my opinion of course!

[/b]

I am well aware by now how to spell your name as it is presnet when I post replies. I add the "e" to bring out your best side, you just haven't figured that out yet.

dgh02: well thanks Al, you do read -- your not Irish Al, you can dispense with the feeble humor. And for the record, Al -- direct me to a URL or archive where I can see LANCER posts attributed to me, or by me during the Lancer - HOAX debate of Nov'03. I didn't post, my predetermined position during that fiasco, as a contributor to the book was, NOT to post. Sorry, no cigar, AL.

Cop Stuff? As a CSI, I have entered photos and films into evidence in trial against professional defense attorney's to depict the reality of a crime scene. I have shot crime scenes in pure darkness using a manually opened aperature and fill lighting by walking a strobe through it without overexposure in a block long crime scene. I do have a little background on photography and filming and can work magic that does not require alteration.

dgh02: Fill light, magic? come on Al, that one won't help your resume

Other than bringing up the "man in the back of the pick-up", "the Zapruder Sitzman waltz" and, well, I will leave it at that, I need not address amature standings in film altercation. I will stand by Bill Miller as he is objective from a basic standpoint and beyond.

dgh02: well, maybe in all the sleuthing and photography you've done in the past, you can tell us amateurs what **photo** and/or distinguishing marks **identify** Abraham Zapruder as ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER standing on the DP pedestal -- you know, a criminal court kinda question? Other than,

"...well, he's about the same height, or someone told me it was him..."

The basics are simple. How do you explain the confirmation on authenticity of the films you prescribe as being altered by way of other films and photos showing consistencies?

dgh02: great question, Al. BTW, who has authenticated any of these films? Can you tell us, who on the Warren Commission even SAW the camera original film? As to the simple amateur photo sleuthing stuff, Bill Miller said he was going to show just that, the seamlessness of ALL DP films, [that's a Dr. TinkThompson term btw]... about 3 maybe 4 years ago. Pretty simple process to do actually, wonder why he didn't? Maybe GaryM wouldn't let him have access to early generation films, perhaps. Or maybe he just CAN'T! Maybe you can give him a hand...?

You know which ones I am talking about as Bill has pounding it through on Lancer without response. These films and photos were released immediately without opportunity to intercept and alter.

dgh02: nonsense, the 'other' films aren't important at the moment, the camera original, or what passes as the camera original Z-film Al, and the Moorman5 thats what is important -- the rest are supporting cast members, a sideshow if you will -- let's go for the real enchilada

Sorry, but I and Bill live in the real world and understand how to challenge through cross examination. Many of you just spout off findings as you are used the workings of the WC and HSCA that did not allow cross challenging of evidence.

dgh02: I see --- pardon me, ROFL!

"Spout off findings," ah, those are published findings -- and research Officer Carrier, research, real world stuff -- seems to me, all I hear from the non-Z-film alteration camp-side of the photo/film analysis debate is, ENVY!

As to evidence; WHAT evidence? Is a trial underway? Research and Opinion, published in book form and archived... The *only* [my opinion of course] way the Z-film would be entered as criminal trial evidence as: "in the interest of history", whats that 'chain of evidence' deal? Now, if one wanted to do a little evidence gathering, how about forensic testing on a 2 frames of the alledged camera original Zapruder film, AND the 3 [minimum] 1st generation optical print

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited November 19, 2004 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

Bill M and Officer Al wrote:

Sorry, but I and Bill live in the real world and understand how to challenge through cross examination. Many of you just spout off findings as you are used the workings of the WC and HSCA that did not allow cross challenging of evidence.

dgh01: I deal't with Officer Al in a earlier post

Healy has made enough replies on this forum to equal the text of one Commission volume,

dgh01: As any thinking person would - check my post total here, how many for you? I rest my case...No, I won't bring up post totals elsewhere, thankfully for you!

but has not cited enough evidence to fill one side of a packet of 'sweet n' low'.

dgh01: I'm the real deal BM, I do sugha!

He tells people to buy a book claiming the Zapruder film is a hoax when he has read it himself

dgh01: "buy it"? I suggest read it! --- "read it himself"? ah, I wrote part of it!

and has since said that he has not seen anything that would prove the Zapruder film to be a hoax.

dgh01: ah. come on admit it -- its a tough pill to swallow, the Z-film might be altered, and a scientific case can be made for film alteration -- I suspect during the upcoming seminar on this forum, you and the rest of the gang will be confronted with that reality, AGAIN -- be brave

His only position it seems is that while he has seen nothing to show the Zapruder film to be altered - he has not seen anything that proves it is the camera original,

dgh01: only a hell of a lot of ducking, and a ton of contrary posting. ALL bemoaning, HOAX contributing authors haven't a clue what they're talking about, yet the amateurs rant, rave and ramble on...

thus it's not been proven to be unaltered.

dgh01: gonna have to run that one by me again, how do you prove a negative [pardon the pun], btw? even I can't do that.

That argument can be made for every photo or film taken in history and is a silly position to take.

dgh01: well there's a few well documented ones at Kodak's photo museum in Rochester, NY facts being what they are, I discuss a few in the book, thanks for the opportunity to plug the book...

Edited November 19, 2004 by David G. Healy