Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder, Four questions..


Guest Stephen Turner

Recommended Posts

The matter of Altgens photos is very suspicious.

The foremost early researchers of photos were Robert Cutler and Richard Sprague.

On their 1970 map of Dealey Plaza in COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION they show

only FOUR Altgens photos:

2. subject not shown, Main and Houston

3. subject not shown, Main and Houston

6. limo on Elm, front view, shot to throat

7. limo on Elm, back view, Hill on trunk

Note that these two foremost experts did not tell about Altgens exposures

1, 4, 5 and 8.

Altgens himself disavowed taking exposures 5 and 8.

In Trask we learn that negative numbers did not correspond to the photo

numbers.

First exposure...negative 2 (vertical shot motorcade on Main)

Second exposure...negative 3 (horizontal shot motorcade on Main)

Third exposure...negative 4 (limo turning from Main to Houston)

Fourth exposure...negative 5 (limo half way down Houston, from rear)

Fifth exposure...negative 6 (limo coming down Elm, JFK hit)

Sixth exposure...negative 7 (limo heading to underpass, Hill on trunk)

Seventh final exposure...negative 8 (pedestal, man in hat, Hesters)

(the above led to some researchers confusing the Altgen numbers)

Altgens, an experienced newsman, lingered in the plaza for several

minutes. WHY did he not take a few more exposures? He is seen in

about half a dozen other photos, but is not taking any exposures.

Altgens 8 is provably taken from the middle of Elm, farther west than

6 and 7. He took NO additional photos after he crossed to the knoll

though he was there several minutes, and his camera was loaded.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I went away for New Year's weekend and took a break from participating in the forum. I was going to make a point for point reply to Jack but at this point think that would be silly. However his last reply to me was so spurious it can not go unreplied to.

First of all I never claimed to be a JFK researcher. I think of myself as a debunker of nonsense and it is very self serving of Jack to state that "all real JFK researchers have read" a book to which he is a contributor. I doubt ALL real researchers have read it from what I gather most serious JFK researchers dismiss all of Fetzer's books as junk so they are not exactly first on my reading list. I am sure Fetzer, White and Healy would use circular logic and say anyone who hasn't read their books isn't a "real researcher" by definition.

As I suspected and as has now been confirmed the claim that 59 witnesses said they saw JFK's limo stop was false and fits with their pattern of spinning the truth to fit their arguments. One must also ask how many witnesses were interviewed and never said the limo stopped or slowed down. One can also surmise that the witnesses who said the limo speed up didn't think it had stopped or they would have said so. Of course there are numerous witnesses who never said it stopped which would be odd if it really had.

Jack used a very low quality blurry frame from Wiegman to support his claim no one was on the pedestal. Low and behold when some cane up with a higher resolution frame two blobs that might well be Zapruder and Stitzman are visible. In similar fashion IIRC he once claimed that a photo of a lunar rover didn't have any track marks but in a higher resolution copy of the same image the tracks are clearly visible.

Jack's double standard is amusing he objects that they (S and Z in the Wiegman frame) are just blobs but then go on to post another frame from Wiegman in which he claims to be able to identify blobs as Jackie and Clint Hill etc. Since Z and S would have been backlit before a dark background it not surprising they would be barely if at all visible in a blurry image. We wouldn't expect them to be anything but small dark blobs anyway.

White's excuse for using such low quality frames, that they were the best he had available, is hard to believe since the higher quality frames were produced by his friend and co-author John Costella.

YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS IS APALLING. YOUR IGNORANCE OF PHOTOGRAPHY IS ABYSSMAL

Funny that what lots of people say about you Jack

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1122504964

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...22jack+white%22

Also Costella's lamppost can easily shown to be false as I will demonstrate in my next post. If you are such an expert photo analyst how come you didn't spot it?

You have yet to give a ration explanation for why Zapruder and Stizman wouldn't have filmed from where they said they did.

I ONLY ANALYZE PHOTOGRAPHS. I DO NOT CLAIM TO HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE MOTIVATIONS OF ZAPRUDER AND SITZMAN FOR LYING. THERE ARE MANY DISCREPANCIES IN WHAT THEY SAID, SO WHY BELIEVE ANY OF IT? ZAPRUDER SAID LIFE PAID HIM $25,000 WHEN IN FACT IT WAS TEN TIMES THAT MUCH. SINCE HE LIED ABOUT THIS, WHY WOULDN'T HE LIE ABOUT OTHER THINGS?

Do you have a citation for this? From what I've read he said that was the first installment and gave the money to Tippet's widow which was the case. In any event lying about how much money you receive is a far cry from being part of a plot to kill the POTUS and give a totally fabricated version of where you were and what you did at the time, do you have indications that Sitzman or Ms. Rodgers were dishonest?

Who then do think filmed the Z-film and where were they?

THE Z-FILM IS A FABRICATION. THE CONSPIRATORS HAD MANY CAMERAS IN THE PLAZA.

Many cameras? - Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

I DO NOT CLAIM TO KNOW WHERE THE CAMERAS WERE, OR HOW THE FILM WAS FABRICATED. I DO NOT KNOW WHO FABRICATED THE FILM.

-The Z-film certainly appears to have been filmed from the pedestal

-Being able to explain how the 'fabricated' film was made is a critical part of you theory. Your crew has yet to establish that such technology existed back then

If Stizman and Zapruder were part of the plot why not have one of them film it?

I HAVE NO IDEA WHY OR HOW Z&S WERE INVOLVED. THE ONLY REASON I CAN THINK OF IS THAT THE PLOTTERS NEEDED "A CIVILIAN" TO CLAIM AUTHORSHIP OF THE FILM. MY OPINION IS THAT THIS WAS FOOLISH. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF WITHOUT ANY FILM AT ALL! BUT THE PLOTTERS (LIKE LBJ) WERE VERY EGOTISTICAL, AND MAYBE WANTED THE FILM AS A "TROPHY OF THEIR KILL".

That didn't answer my question

What was to be gained by filming from one location and saying it was filmed from another?

THE FILM WAS FABRICATED, USING A "PILOT FILM" MADE FROM THE PEDESTAL, PLUS

OTHER FILMS THAT SHOWED WHAT HAPPENED. NOTHING WAS GAINED BY THE CONSPIRATORS BY HAVING SUCH A FILM. NUMEROUS FILMS LIKELY WERE SHOT FROM VARIOUS LOCATIONS.[/quote]

Once again your reply didn't answer my question.

Also your reference to a pilot film seems to contradict Costella who said they had to have a film of the actual limo and is occupants. According to your theories they made their forgery in an inexplicably complicated fashion. The simplest thing to do would have been to have their 'plants' Zapruder and Sitzman film from the pedestal and then only alter the parts that contradicted the LHO as LN story. Can you explain why they would film on a street other than Elm and then paste in features like lampposts and highway signs and then have to superimpose the limo and move people like Mary Moorman around? If they didn't film the background on Elm why aren't there dozens of discrepancies, if they filmed on Elm why did they have to add the lamppost and sign?

I was wondering what the source was for your claim that Altgens denied taking the photo of Z and S in the pergola?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Fetzer claimed that John Costella was "the leading technical expert on the (Zapruder) film" (1) and had "a specialty in optics" (2). This despite the fact that it's hard to argue that Costella is the leading expert on anything, he is a grammar school teacher and has never had a scientific article published in a peer review journal. He did publish three articles about TEACHING physics in a science education magazine and early version of his dissertation appeared in an obscure online journal. He doesn't have any experience or training in photography or optics on his CV other that a few unpublished papers (3). He has a Ph.D. but it is in theoretical physics a totally unrelated field. Some one with a BFA in basket weaving would be just as qualified to analyze the Z-film.

According to Costella a slight difference in the angle of a lamppost in relation to the curb when comparing a Z-film frame to a Dallas Police photo is proof of adulteration. He wrote "…the angle of the lamppost is wrong… the lamppost changes its angle… The Zapruder film shows the lamppost leaning slightly to the right. Even though it is only a small lean, it is something that could not happen if the film was genuine." (4) The difference in the lamppost's angle is so slight it's only noticeable when a line is drawn through it.

What the Z-film's "leading technical expert" failed to realize is that the very slight difference in the apparent angle of the lamppost between the two images can easily be explained by the fact that they were taken from different locations. Surprisingly he admits that the images were taken from different locations but says that this wouldn't affect the post's angle, "It does not matter that the Zapruder film lamppost is slightly to the left of the Dallas Police Department photo. That is explained by the police taking the photo from a slightly different position to Abraham Zapruder."(5)

The photos below are of the base of the same lamppost in front of my house. My front yard is a couple of feet above street level like the DP pedestal. By slightly changing my position I was able to radically change the apparent angle between the post and curb. True the post was much closer to me than the Elm street post was to the pedestal but my change in position was less that what would have possible on the pedestal and the difference in angles is many fold greater. One doesn't even need a camera to verify this only to observe the difference in apparent angles between any horizontal and vertical object when changing your position.

tn_post1.jpgtn_post2.jpg

That Costella could make such a huge blunder makes all his other analysis suspect. That Jack White didn't catch it makes his claim of being an expert photo analyst just as suspect. So much for Fetzer and his brain trust, it is amusing how they exaggerate each other's qualifications. I think of them as half a dozen naked self declared emperors admiring each other's clothing.

1) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2356

2) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/641

3) http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...sics/index.html

(4) http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...o/lamppost.html

(5) ibid

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Fetzer claimed that John Costella was "the leading technical expert on the (Zapruder) film" (1) and had "a specialty in optics" (2). This despite the fact that it's hard to argue that Costella is the leading expert on anything, he is a grammar school teacher and has never had a scientific article published in a peer review journal. He did publish three articles about TEACHING physics in a science education magazine and early version of his dissertation appeared in an obscure online journal. He doesn't have any experience or training in photography or optics on his CV other that a few unpublished papers (3). He has a Ph.D. but it is in theoretical physics a totally unrelated field. Some one with a BFA in basket weaving would be just as qualified to analyze the Z-film.

According to Costella a slight difference in the angle of a lamppost in relation to the curb when comparing a Z-film frame to a Dallas Police photo is proof of adulteration. He wrote "…the angle of the lamppost is wrong… the lamppost changes its angle… The Zapruder film shows the lamppost leaning slightly to the right. Even though it is only a small lean, it is something that could not happen if the film was genuine." (4) The difference in the lamppost's angle is so slight it's only noticeable when a line is drawn through it.

What the Z-film's "leading technical expert" failed to realize is that the very slight difference in the apparent angle of the lamppost between the two images can easily be explained by the fact that they were taken from different locations. Surprisingly he admits that the images were taken from different locations but says that this wouldn't affect the post's angle, "It does not matter that the Zapruder film lamppost is slightly to the left of the Dallas Police Department photo. That is explained by the police taking the photo from a slightly different position to Abraham Zapruder."(5)

The photos below are of the base of the same lamppost in front of my house. My front yard is a couple of feet above street level like the DP pedestal. By slightly changing my position I was able to radically change the apparent angle between the post and curb. True the post was much closer to me than the Elm street post was to the pedestal but my change in position was less that what would have possible on the pedestal and the difference in angles is many fold greater. One doesn't even need a camera to verify this only to observe the difference in apparent angles between any horizontal and vertical object when changing your position.

tn_post1.jpgtn_post2.jpg

That Costella could make such a huge blunder makes all his other analysis suspect. That Jack White didn't catch it makes his claim of being an expert photo analyst just as suspect. So much for Fetzer and his brain trust, it is amusing how they exaggerate each other's qualifications. I think of them as half a dozen naked self declared emperors admiring each other's clothing.

1) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2356

2) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/641

3) http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...sics/index.html

(4) http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...o/lamppost.html

(5) ibid

Get your person to Dealey Plaza Mr. Colby -- take a few photos and show us your stuff -- this nonsense of photos taken in frot of your house, in Brazil [or is it elsewhere] is to say the least, ludicrious.

Or you can find a REAL photo analyst and put him/them on the job -- all the rank amateurs from your side of the fence has got to be disheartening for the Single Bullet Theory crowd

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to post
Share on other sites
John Dolva wrote:

"I share doubt about this whole thing. Partly it's 'philosophical' : how can one use a film one considers a fake to prove the genuineness of features about a film one has chosen not to call fake and so on."

John...you are missing the point. Even IF ALL THE IMAGES ARE FAKE,

it is important to point out the discrepancies between them. That is NOT

using one to "prove genuineness" of another. To the contrary, such

differences make BOTH suspect. This is an important difference!

I have come to believe through years of such comparisons that most

of the images have been altered to some degree. For years I thought

Moorman was an untampered image, but I now believe the pedestal

area was retouched to add Zapruder and Sitzman. The DIFFERENCES

in the various Z&S images prove tampering...not that any one view

is genuine. See THE ZAPRUDER WALTZ.

Jack

Jack, I'm going to bow out of this discussion for now. Not through lack of interest, but it's taking up too much of my time. I have looked at those images grayscaled, reoriented and resized and don't see a problem. The differences in photographs taken split seconds apart from the same location with just a minimal difference in aspect, incidence, attack or whatever is significant to the point that all photos unless actual copies that capture all elements of the original, all photos are unique and to use this difference that comes from the nature of the medium to build a case for alteration is not the best. Nevertheless your point is taken. Be well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

You stated that you looked at those images grayscaled, reoriented and resized, and didn't see a problem. If you were referring to Zapruder and Sitzman having actually been located on the abutment during the times that Willis, Betzner, Moorman, Nix, and Bronson were operating their cameras, then I would be in complete agreement . In all instances I too would have no problem in accepting that these five people individually captured the images of both Zapruder and Sitzman while they were on the abutment. In fact I have enlarged, brightened, and contrasted all five of their individual depictions, and in each and every case I have been able to establish the presence of the two people in question. In other words, I believe that the entire question reduces ultimately to issues of human perception and visual interpretation... I see/you see

That said, however, does not imply that I would agree that depictions of the abutment have not been retouched/darkened/ partially obscured ....... certainly deliberately 'doctored' would be my choice of the appropriate word. I say this, because in each and every case I have been able to distinguish the images of

policemen either aiming cameras or pointing with an outstretched arm over the shoulder of one of their companions holding a camera. It was the presence of these policemen that had to be obscured.

For the time being I would suggest consideration of the following:

- You are a conspirator planning the assassination, and the central focus of the the plot is to ensure that Lee Harvey Oswald will be named as the LN assassin who fired shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Would you also place a second assassin behind the fence on the GK?

- If you do decide to locate a second assassin behind the fence on the GK, do you think any self-respecting sniper will undertake the task given the location, the spectataors , etc. ?

- If many spectators were so sure that gunfire had come from behind the fence on the GK, and had also seen JFK and Connally being hit ( or even if they had not), why were they so sure that no harm would come to them when they ran up the knoll.?

The enlarged Bronson depiction of the abutment is attached below. The interesting area is located on the Sitzman's left/ viewer's right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty good, Jack. Thanks.

I think my ongoing problem comes from my taking a close look at the limo in Z-380, and comparing that to the Weigman frame. In 380 Kennedy appears to have fallen almost entirely below the level of the seat. The passenger in Kennedy's position in the Weigman frame, on the other hand, appears to be much more erect. Even worse, there appears to be a vertical strip of chrome on the right side of the limo in the Weigman frame, while the President's Lincoln limo, with its suicide doors, lacked such a strip. The Queen Mary, on the other hand, had such a strip, as revealed by Warren Commission Exhibit 903.

So I still have my doubts on this.

1. Show me an American flag on the front fender of the QM.

2. The SS men in the QM were STANDING. Show me anyone standing.

3. The QM had nobody climbing on the trunk.

4. The QM had nobody wearing a pillbox hat in the back seat.

Show me.

Jack

I finally got back home and took a look at the Weigman and Daniel films, and now agree that the car disappearing into the tunnel in the Weigman film is indeed the Presidential limo. I think someone said this frame corresponded to Z-380 but I think that's wrong, however. The limousine disappeared into shadow at Z-470 or so, so the Weigman frame would correspond to approximately Z-460.

On re-watching the Weigman film I was unable to isolate a clear frame showing an empty pedestal BEFORE the limousine disappeared into the tunnel. Approximately one second before the film shows the limo there is a fairly clear shot of the arcade area, but it appeared to me that the pedestal was blocked off by the Thornton Freeway sign. Perhaps some of the confusion is caused by the fact that after Weigman films the limo, he pans back to the Stemmons Freeway sign, and an empty pedestal is revealed in the background.

Also of note: the Weigman film on the Groden Assassination Films DVD has been edited. Groden doesn't say where the film was cut, but maybe that's a factor in all the confusion.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites
Get your person to Dealey Plaza Mr. Colby -- take a few photos and show us your stuff -- this nonsense of photos taken in frot of your house, in Brazil [or is it elsewhere] is to say the least, ludicrious.

Or you can find a REAL photo analyst and put him/them on the job -- all the rank amateurs from your side of the fence has got to be disheartening for the Single Bullet Theory crowd

Dave if this is so ludicrous you should easily be able to debunk it. The principle is the same, it doesn't matter if the images were taken in DP, Brazil or Timbuktu. That the difference in position between Zapruder and the DPD photographer was big enough that the two images of the post were far apart in Costella's panorama it is certainly enough to account for the very small difference in angle.

Also the difference could be explained if your school teacher friend even very slightly misaligned the photos in his composite panorama, only the top half of the post is visible in the Z frame. See if you can post a high resolution copy of the panorama here or elsewhere on the web, the copy on Fetzer's sight is of too low resolution to verify if the alignment between the various images is 100 % accurate. I just looked at the panorama again and noticed that the sign posts show a near identical difference of angle, doesn't that suggest something to you?

You want to debunk me? Send one of your boys to DP, have them place a portable flag pole or something similar as close as possible to where the post was and the take pixs of it from the positions Zapruder and the DPD photographer were in. Then overlay the images and see if you can get both the curb and the pole to line up!

For all of Costella's talk about this and that violating the laws of physics and being the top technical expert of the Zapruder film and having a specialization in optics, he failed to take into account a basic principle, that when you change your angle of view the apparent angle between objects can also change.

How ironic that you told me to "find a REAL photo analyst" that's what Fetzer should have done!

Don't try to make this a SBT v. conspiracy issue, most JFK researchers including participants of this forum reject both the SBT and TGZFH. Are you so desperate that you have to resort to 'straw man' arguments?

Len

PS - You're butt naked put some clothes on!

Link to post
Share on other sites
John,

You stated that you looked at those images grayscaled, reoriented and resized, and didn't see a problem. If you were referring to Zapruder and Sitzman having actually been located on the abutment during the times that Willis, Betzner, Moorman, Nix, and Bronson were operating their cameras, then I would be in complete agreement . In all instances I too would have no problem in accepting that these five people individually captured the images of both Zapruder and Sitzman while they were on the abutment. In fact I have enlarged, brightened, and contrasted all five of their individual depictions, and in each and every case I have been able to establish the presence of the two people in question. In other words, I believe that the entire question reduces ultimately to issues of human perception and visual interpretation... I see/you see

That said, however, does not imply that I would agree that depictions of the abutment have not been retouched/darkened/ partially obscured ....... certainly deliberately 'doctored' would be my choice of the appropriate word. I say this, because in each and every case I have been able to distinguish the images of

policemen either aiming cameras or pointing with an outstretched arm over the shoulder of one of their companions holding a camera. It was the presence of these policemen that had to be obscured.

For the time being I would suggest consideration of the following:

- You are a conspirator planning the assassination, and the central focus of the the plot is to ensure that Lee Harvey Oswald will be named as the LN assassin who fired shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Would you also place a second assassin behind the fence on the GK?

- If you do decide to locate a second assassin behind the fence on the GK, do you think any self-respecting sniper will undertake the task given the location, the spectataors , etc. ?

- If many spectators were so sure that gunfire had come from behind the fence on the GK, and had also seen JFK and Connally being hit ( or even if they had not), why were they so sure that no harm would come to them when they ran up the knoll.?

The enlarged Bronson depiction of the abutment is attached below. The interesting area is located on the Sitzman's left/ viewer's right.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- You are a conspirator planning the assassination, and the central focus of the the plot is to ensure that Lee Harvey Oswald will be named as the LN assassin who fired shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Would you also place a second assassin behind the fence on the GK?

- If you do decide to locate a second assassin behind the fence on the GK, do you think any self-respecting sniper will undertake the task given the location, the spectataors , etc. ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My faith (or lack thereof) that there are those who can still apply logic to the subject has been renewed.

Thanks!

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Len Colby' wrote:

Get your person to Dealey Plaza Mr. Colby -- take a few photos and show us your stuff -- this nonsense of photos taken in frot of your house, in Brazil [or is it elsewhere] is to say the least, ludicrious.

Or you can find a REAL photo analyst and put him/them on the job -- all the rank amateurs from your side of the fence has got to be disheartening for the Single Bullet Theory crowd

Dave if this is so ludicrous you should easily be able to debunk it. The principle is the same, it doesn't matter if the images were taken in DP, Brazil or Timbuktu. That the difference in position between Zapruder and the DPD photographer was big enough that the two images of the post were far apart in Costella's panorama it is certainly enough to account for the very small difference in angle.

Also the difference could be explained if your school teacher friend even very slightly misaligned the photos in his composite panorama, only the top half of the post is visible in the Z frame. See if you can post a high resolution copy of the panorama here or elsewhere on the web, the copy on Fetzer's sight is of too low resolution to verify if the alignment between the various images is 100 % accurate. I just looked at the panorama again and noticed that the sign posts show a near identical difference of angle, doesn't that suggest something to you?

You want to debunk me?

dgh01: why, you've nothing to debunk? I do believe JCostella is on the record -- get to DP do your thing and get back to us -- I'm sure GaryM has another gopher around there that'll do the bidding, that is; if YOU can't find the time or can't get here for one reason or another.... so please, get on the record

Send one of your boys to DP, have them place a portable flag pole or something similar as close as possible to where the post was and the take pixs of it from the positions Zapruder and the DPD photographer were in. Then overlay the images and see if you can get both the curb and the pole to line up!

dgh01: see what you missed by not being at the 2003 Univ of Minn Z-film symposium -- it's ALL on DVD...

For all of Costella's talk about this and that violating the laws of physics and being the top technical expert of the Zapruder film and having a specialization in optics, he failed to take into account a basic principle, that when you change your angle of view the apparent angle between objects can also change.

dgh01: we await your sides Physicist -- I sus[pect it'll be one Loooooonnnnnnngggggg wait!

How ironic that you told me to "find a REAL photo analyst" that's what Fetzer should have done!

dgh01: well, what are you waiting for, hop to it!

Don't try to make this a SBT v. conspiracy issue, most JFK researchers including participants of this forum reject both the SBT and TGZFH. Are you so desperate that you have to resort to 'straw man' arguments?

Len

PS - You're butt naked put some clothes on!

dgh01: I understand its tough, stick to the subject matter -- voyering, not allowed Mr. Colby!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As with the previous Z-film thread, this one has also yielded any semblance of informational value to the "network battle of the superstar egos."

Mr. Colby, by attempting to debunk something you haven't read, you have revealed a bias, and not fact. I have read Fetzer's books, and while I don't have the expertise to challenge the work myself, I consider myself open-minded enough to entertain opinions that conflict with Fetzer's conclusions, if offered by individuals presenting facts. While I believe that Fetzer has a high probability of being correct in most aspects, I think that--based upon the work of Pat Speer and John Dolva--there may be other, MORE correct interpretations of the facts than Fetzers. But had I not read Fetzer's books, I would have no standing from which to arrive at such a conclusion. That would be akin to criticizing the Warren Commission report without having read it...and some folks DO come from that position.

I don't know Mr. Healy, and I don't know Jack White, and I don't know Dr. Fetzer...so I cannot defend their personal character. BUT NEITHER CAN I ATTACK SAME, and have any credibility.

So, you boys resume your ego-fest...and let the rest of us go about discussing and examining evidence. Let us know who wins...no, on second thought, DON'T.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dgh01: why, you've nothing to debunk? I do believe JCostella is on the record -- get to DP do your thing and get back to us -- I'm sure GaryM has another gopher around there that'll do the bidding, that is; if YOU can't find the time or can't get here for one reason or another.... so please, get on the record

You believe he is on record? You believe as in you're not sure? You believe he is on record, saying exactly what? I provided 2 possible explainations for the diffference in the angle of the post. You have yet to refute them

Send one of your boys to DP, have them place a portable flag pole or something similar as close as possible to where the post was and the take pixs of it from the positions Zapruder and the DPD photographer were in. Then overlay the images and see if you can get both the curb and the pole to line up!

dgh01: see what you missed by not being at the 2003 Univ of Minn Z-film symposium -- it's ALL on DVD...

Did Costella address those issues at the symposium? Since were there, taped it and have a copy of the DVD perhaps you could summerize his arguments. stange that he doesn't metion it on the TGZFH section of Fetzer's site.

For all of Costella's talk about this and that violating the laws of physics and being the top technical expert of the Zapruder film and having a specialization in optics, he failed to take into account a basic principle, that when you change your angle of view the apparent angle between objects can also change.

dgh01: we await your sides Physicist -- I sus[pect it'll be one Loooooonnnnnnngggggg wait!

The last time I studied physics was in high school, I have a BA in history. This isn't really rocket science it is something that anyone can observe without leaving their home.

How ironic that you told me to "find a REAL photo analyst" that's what Fetzer should have done!

dgh01: well, what are you waiting for, hop to it!

I don't claim to be a photo analyst, just like like Fetzer, Costella, White and you I have no training in the feild.

Instead of huffing ang puffing and blowing smoke tell us why the slight difference in the percieved angle of the post can not be explained by the different angles of view of the Z- frame and the DPD photo and prove to us that Costela's alinement is 100% accurate. This I imagine WILL be a very long wait.

Speaking of long waits I'm still waiting for you to cite a single movie made before 1964 with compositing as complicated and undetectable as what you claim was done to the Z-film. No book or magazine citations actual movies. Might your refusal to name one be because thare aren't any? LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
As with the previous Z-film thread, this one has also yielded any semblance of informational value to the "network battle of the superstar egos."

Mr. Colby, by attempting to debunk something you haven't read, you have revealed a bias, and not fact. I have read Fetzer's books, and while I don't have the expertise to challenge the work myself, I consider myself open-minded enough to entertain opinions that conflict with Fetzer's conclusions, if offered by individuals presenting facts. While I believe that Fetzer has a high probability of being correct in most aspects, I think that--based upon the work of Pat Speer and John Dolva--there may be other, MORE correct interpretations of the facts than Fetzers. But had I not read Fetzer's books, I would have no standing from which to arrive at such a conclusion. That would be akin to criticizing the Warren Commission report without having read it...and some folks DO come from that position.

I don't know Mr. Healy, and I don't know Jack White, and I don't know Dr. Fetzer...so I cannot defend their personal character. BUT NEITHER CAN I ATTACK SAME, and have any credibility.

So, you boys resume your ego-fest...and let the rest of us go about discussing and examining evidence. Let us know who wins...no, on second thought, DON'T.

Mark,

I haven't read Fetzer's JFK books but I did read the section of his site that summarizes the main arguments of TGZFH and followed the argument on this forum and elsewhere on the web. I have only sought to debunk points spelled in these sources.

I don't believe the time, technology or know how existed back in '63 to do to the Z-film what they allege. I asked them to cite a movie with similar compositing and the best they can come up with is Mary Poppins! The compositing in that Disney classic is far less sophisticated that what is spelled out in TGZFH.

Another point I wish to debunk is Costella’s spurious "lamp post mistake" argument. The good doctor simply failed to take a basic fact of nature in to account. All that you or any one else has to do to confirm this is to look at lamppost or telephone pole paying attention to the apparent angle to the curb and then change your angle of view.

There all manner of logical holes in their theories and when I ask about them the can’t provide any logical explainations

As for attacks on character Fetzer and Healy insulted me, why should I pay them more respect than they pay me? When Healy called me an idiot etc you were silent Costella, White and Fetzer have long histories of purporting all manners of nonsense. I know Healy, White and Fetzer from arguing with them and reading there writings and don't believe them to be credible. I think they believe what they say, but I don't believe what they say.They are able to distort the truth in their own minds to suit their theories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Len Colby' wrote:

As with the previous Z-film thread, this one has also yielded any semblance of informational value to the "network battle of the superstar egos."

Mr. Colby, by attempting to debunk something you haven't read, you have revealed a bias, and not fact. I have read Fetzer's books, and while I don't have the expertise to challenge the work myself, I consider myself open-minded enough to entertain opinions that conflict with Fetzer's conclusions, if offered by individuals presenting facts. While I believe that Fetzer has a high probability of being correct in most aspects, I think that--based upon the work of Pat Speer and John Dolva--there may be other, MORE correct interpretations of the facts than Fetzers. But had I not read Fetzer's books, I would have no standing from which to arrive at such a conclusion. That would be akin to criticizing the Warren Commission report without having read it...and some folks DO come from that position.

I don't know Mr. Healy, and I don't know Jack White, and I don't know Dr. Fetzer...so I cannot defend their personal character. BUT NEITHER CAN I ATTACK SAME, and have any credibility.

So, you boys resume your ego-fest...and let the rest of us go about discussing and examining evidence. Let us know who wins...no, on second thought, DON'T.

Mark,

I haven't read Fetzer's JFK books but I did read the section of his site that summarizes the main arguments of TGZFH and followed the argument on this forum and elsewhere on the web. I have only sought to debunk points spelled in these sources.

I don't believe the time, technology or know how existed back in '63 to do to the Z-film what they allege. I asked them to cite a movie with similar compositing and the best they can come up with is Mary Poppins! The compositing in that Disney classic is far less sophisticated that what is spelled out in TGZFH.

Another point I wish to debunk is Costella’s spurious "lamp post mistake" argument. The good doctor simply failed to take a basic fact of nature in to account. All that you or any one else has to do to confirm this is to look at lamppost or telephone pole paying attention to the apparent angle to the curb and then change your angle of view.

debunk, nonsense! change your angle of view -- well now, THAT's real specfic for you!

There all manner of logical holes in their theories and when I ask about them the can’t provide any logical explainations

As for attacks on character Fetzer and Healy insulted me, why should I pay them more respect than they pay me? When Healy called me an idiot etc you were silent Costella, White and Fetzer have long histories of purporting all manners of nonsense. I know Healy, White and Fetzer from arguing with them and reading there writings and don't believe them to be credible. I think they believe what they say, but I don't believe what they say.They are able to distort the truth in their own minds to suit their theories.

______________

READ the book! THEN get back to me! Btw, you haven't argued with anyone that I recall, there's absolutely no basis in considering ANY of your ramblings, scientific - so why argue...? Get the varsity in here you guy's sheesh!

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to post
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...