John Geraghty Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Mark, I concur. Bill has pointed out errors in my observations before and was quite pleasant about it. I'm sure David and I have exchanged information on at least one thread in the past. I find it quite disconcerting that this sort of carry on occurs on a quite important thread, given that the symposium organised is designed to bring the JFK assassination to the publics attention. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 (edited) Healy barked: polka dots? you gotta be kidding? Where's the photographic examples? Lurkers want to see Zapruder film samples and references. The before and after??? Let me assist you; You have access to 35mm or 4x5 trannies LIFE Zapruder-frames. Utilizing a 2k (4000k by 4000k) first generation digital file .tiff file of same, take a 500x500 pixel section of the DP infield grass of said alledged in-camera Zapruder film frame [any frame showing the infield with or without the limo] - and we'll need the provenance of said frame], that will be your Kodacolor II 8mm example still (sample-image 1), the result of image 1; in its 8mm 35mm 'bumped' form to *negative stock (make that sample, image sample 2) - then to 35mm reversal stock (make that one, image-sample 3), then back down to 8mm Kodacolor II (and finally, image-sample 4). Also, tell us the 8mm and the 1963-4 vintage 35mm film stock you'll be referencing. Show us what we should look for. How we can tell the fake frame from the original... Care to name your experts? LOL David, David, David...no DI on this one pal. A 4000x4000 2k scan? Why? Exactly what information are you trying to record outside the image frame? Or is there some secret square format 8mm Kodachrome? LOL! Not that it matters because ITS A DIGITAL PROCESS! Now who exactly was doing this back in 63? In any case your example is worthless to the task at hand...understanding generational loss and kodachrome color crossover problems (no warttens can fix that) via the copy process (film copy process that is, 1963 style). Nope either you understand how it works in old school film or you don't. Seems you don't. Why try and fool the lurkers with all of this digital crap David? Not very honest of you. But then again thats never been your strong suit anyway. Back to the drawing board there pal....btw, need any white shoes? ROTFLMAO! Edited May 15, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 (edited) David, David, David...no DI on this one pal. A 4000x4000 2k scan? Why? Exactly what information are you trying to record outside the image frame? Or is there some secret square format 8mm Kodachrome? LOL! Not that it matters because ITS A DIGITAL PROCESS! Now who exactly was doing this back in 63? In any case your example is worthless to the task at hand...understanding generational loss and kodachrome color crossover problems (no warttens can fix that) via the copy process (film copy process that is, 1963 style). Nope either you understand how it works in old school film or you don't. Seems you don't. Why try and fool the lurkers with all of this digital crap David? Not very honest of you. But then again thats never been your strong suit anyway. Back to the drawing board there pal....btw, need any white shoes? ROTFLMAO! Craig, I gave David the chance to take the high road and show some hint of integrity by admitting that the transfer problems were valid, but instead of addressing them, he tries to deal off the bottom of the deck in the way you just described him doing. I guess I should not have him the benefit of the doubt, but what do you expect from a guy who is consistently pretending to know it all and ends up looking like a moron because he didn't do his homework. One such example can be found in this thread when he said and I quote ... " And, its not called enlarging, it's blowup as in 8mm blowup to 35mm (exactly what Groden's mentor, Moe Weitzman did with the Zapruder in-camera 8mm original he received from LIFE, you're not disputing that are you?) -- " They say that the difference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid man is too ignorant to know when to admit he was wrong. Once again David Healy tried to appear as if he knew more than someone else by trying to divert attention away from the matter and once again it can be proven that he didn't know what he was talking about. I believe you could tell David all about gravity and how it works, then have to argue with him that if a hammer was dropped from over his head that it would fall and hit him while he says it will just float in midair despite it common knowledge to the contrary ... but rather than he admit that he was ever in error, he'd try to make it appear that one needs to actually show a hammer being dropped from above someone's head to prove the already substantiated laws of physics are correct. Taken from the glossary of terms in photography: http://www.peterashbyhayter.co.uk/glossary...ml#anchor348243 BTW, I took the liberty to enlarge/blow-up the text about enlargement definition as it pertains to photography - saved it - and then shrunk it back down again ... maybe someone can point out to Healy that it lost its sharpness during the transfer and stands out against the first generated text of the post itself. Hopefully there will be no need for hand puppets, but they are nearby if we need them. Bill Edited May 16, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 (edited) You idiots. None of you are salesmen (or even very bright). Tom has been to the head people at major networks and news magazines, showing them a slide presentation of more than twenty major points in TGZFH. That is more than any of you have done or can do. What caught their eye at each place AS THE MOST OBVIOUS AND EASIEST FOR ANYONE TO UNDERSTAND (except idiots)? The black vs white shoes! Anyone except idiots can tell the difference between black and white! It was not his strongest point...BUT THE EASIEST TO SELL! So Tom moved THE SHOES to the front of his presentation because all of his audiences grasped it so easily. There were no idiots at these places. But it was his BAIT which made them a softer audience for his other twenty subjects. He found by showing them something so easily understood by ANYBODY that they were on his side early, instead of being skeptical. That is salesmanship. Quit displaying your ignorance. It is tiresome. Jack Edited May 15, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Cormier Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 On the theory that even on a day cool and cloudy, a third of a pint is better than none at all, I summarize below my impressions of today's proceedings between 11:00 and noon, Washington time. I had to leave at noon because of prior commitments. 1. The conference's sponsor, Paul Kuntzler, spoke for 5 minutes. Apparently decent and very well meaning, Mr. Kuntzler has been troubled by press coverage since the assassination, and especially since the release of documents following the JFK Act some 15 years ago. With the exceptions of Helen Thomas and Robert MacNeil, no one in the national media, in Kunzler's view, has given this issue the open mind and attention it deserves. (This gentleman certainly knows how to put on a conference. He secured a substantial portion of the main ballroom of the Willard, one of our finer hotels, and provided seats for about 300 guests. I counted at least 8 flat screen televisions in the anteroom, one showing original footage of that dreadful weekend, another showing "JFK", etc. The ballroom with supplied with a huge flatscreen and an overhead. Unfortunately, I counted about 30 guests in addition to the panelists and technicians that first hour -- many of them in or barely out of college, the balance "forty-something" geezers like me. This, I suppose, is what happens when an event is publicized for the first time the very night before it occurs. I felt sorry for Mr. Kuntzler). 3. He was then followed by Jim Fetzer, who spoke until 11:20 and also served as a bridge between subsequent speakers. Jim launched an attack on the WCR, the HSCA Report, and "Case Closed" that I'm sure is familiar to you all. He recounted his belief that there were at least 6, and as many as 8, shots fired in DP that day, with JFK sustaining a wound to his back from behind, an entrance wound to his throat, and two head wounds, one from behind and another from forward of the vehicle. 4. What, then, is one to make of those X-rays? Enter Dr. Mantik, who had spent nine days at the National Archives and made two principal points today. First, even though five X-rays were taken of JFK's head (he knows this from two witnesses), only three appear in the Archives, and they are copies, not originals. He knows this because the originals should have been roughly textured because of scraped emulsions, but the X-rays he saw were smooth. Dr. Mantik then demonstrated how easy it is to alter copies, suing a pair of scissors and his daughter's toy. Second, describing a technique termed optical densitometry, Dr. Mantick explained that the massive rear head wound observed by the doctors was deliberately masked by the X-Rays. How does he know this? Because the rear head appears far too bright in the X-rays, with a "contrast factor" of 1000 instead of the usual two. If the X-Ray of the rear head were genuine, then JFK indeed would have been a "bonehead". Dr. Mantick concluded by noting that the X-rays do not square with pictures and eyewitness descriptions of the brain, with too much matter missing in the front. He also noted 3 doctors did NOT observe a 6.5 mm bullet grain in the brain, which shows up on the X-rays. 5. A little after 11:30, Doug Horne took the floor, also speaking for about 10 minutes. He served on the AARB staff from August 1995 through September 1998 and claims to have found "unequivocal evidence of a government cover-up of the medical evidence", and specifically 'serious fraud' in three areas. He observed that there were three and not one versions of the autopsy report, Ex. 387. Dr. Humes admitted under oath while deposed by the AARB that he burned a draft report along with his notes in his fireplace. Another "original" autopsy report was then sent to Bobby Kennedy per Secret Service records. Yet, another "original" was thereafter sent to the Nat'l Archives per those same records. How can that be? Horne then stated that there were two brain examinations, one on November 25, and the second during the period November 29 through December 2. The second examination, which was not of JFK's brain but of a substitute brain, was an occasion for fraud. The photos of that examination were on the wrong kind of film, and were taken from an erroneous perspective. Also, there was no sectioning, as there was in the original exam. All this per the doctors. Horne concluded that there is something "seriously wrong' with the autopsy photos, which do not square with the observations of Parkland doctors or doctors present at the autopsy. In Horne's estimation, "something is terribly wrong' about all this. 6. Evidently, the sponsor (or perhaps more accurately, Fetzer) has concluded that the Z-film cannot be squared with a 6+ shot scenario, Enter, Thomas "Nike" Lipscomb, who temporarily drove this bus into a ditch. Mercifully, he spoke for only five minutes. He made two points. Using descriptions of Mr. Zapruder's height, and photographs of Mr. Zapruder's assistant's attire, he appeared to raise questions whether these folks, in fact, were old Abe and his assistant. He didn't overly suggest who these people might have been, and if they weren't Abe and his assistant, where the latter two were when the would be imposters filmed. Nor did Lipscomb even mention the rather famous TV footage shortly after the assassination in which Abe -- undoubtedly the genuine article this time -- says he is Abe and explains how he filmed. Second, and predictably, Lipscomb showed pictures of witnesses with shoes on upon arriving at Dealey Plaza, counterposed with what these women appear to be wearing in a snippet of the Z-film, white sneakers. It was far from clear to me that they were, in fact, wearing white sneakers or whether, instead, their shoes were obscured by the angle of Abe's camera and/or the grass and we were looking at their socks instead. More importantly, there was utterly no effort made to tie the significance of what was on these womens' feet to how the Z-film was altered. How can altering footwear change shot sequence and location? Lipscomb then said he and others are at the early stages of this Z-film work. Obviously so. Any charge of alteration based on the evidence he presented today is preposterous. 6. Finally, Joan Mellon began talking about Louisiana and LHO, and I had to leave. Unfortunately, they did not get to Jeff Morley, also a panelist, while I was there. Caveat: I saw only the first hour folks. So if anything transpired thereafter that changes the above in any significant way, I was not there to observe it. Bruce You idiots. None of you are salesmen (or even very bright).Tom has been to the head people at major networks and news magazines, showing them a slide presentation of more than twenty major points in TGZFH. That is more than any of you have done or can do. What caught their eye at each place AS THE MOST OBVIOUS AND EASIEST FOR ANYONE TO UNDERSTAND (except idiots)? The black vs white shoes! Anyone except idiots can tell the difference between black and white! It was not his strongest point...BUT THE EASIEST TO SELL! So Tom moved THE SHOES to the front of his presentation because all of his audiences grasped it so easily. There were no idiots at these places. But it was his BAIT which made them a softer audience for his other twenty subjects. He found by showing them something so easily understood by ANYBODY that they were on his side early, instead of being skeptical. That is salesmanship. Quit displaying your ignorance. It is tiresome. Jack Jack, at least initally today, the shoe salemanship today about about half on his 5-minute talk and was singularly unpersuasive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 (edited) You idiots. None of you are salesmen (or even very bright). Tom has been to the head people at major networks and news magazines, showing them a slide presentation of more than twenty major points in TGZFH. That is more than any of you have done or can do. What caught their eye at each place AS THE MOST OBVIOUS AND EASIEST FOR ANYONE TO UNDERSTAND (except idiots)? The black vs white shoes! Anyone except idiots can tell the difference between black and white! It was not his strongest point...BUT THE EASIEST TO SELL! Whoa, Jack! I recall where you made the claim that Moorman and Hill didn't have on black shoes in the Zapruder film, but instead were wearing white tennis shoes. How you made that claim in "TGZFH" was to use a black and white image that blended color tones to the point that the average person wouldn't be able to make out where one color left off and the other started. Even if someone was so inept to think that Moorman and Hill's feet had been cut off at the ankles, they surely would have seen your dishonesty by looking at "COLOR" stills of Mary and Jean's feet. The proof is in the color images below, so if that Tom fella is going to repeat that crooked nonsense that you tried to pull, then it is he who then becomes the idiot IMO. By the way, the black shoes seen against the green grass are reasonably visible even on the MPI version that has lost some of its sharpness because of the filters that was used in processing it ... how much sharper do you think the actual original Zapruder film would make those shoes appear ... think about that before you continue calling people idiots! Bill Miller Edited May 15, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Only someone who is visually impaired would see these shoes as the same! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Why must these threads nearly always deteriorate into a micturating contest between and among the photo and film folks? The namecalling does nothing to advance the research, and a lot at blackening the image of everyone on both sides of the assassination debate Thank you Mark. I was just about to type the same thing. This started out as a very interesting thread til these two got into it. John could I ask you to give the Z film fighters their OWN thread and insist on then limiting their posts TO THIS thread so that the rest of us can continue to enjoy the forum and not have to plow thru these endless and nearly mindless and always nasty posts. Better yet, why don't you two just keep it private. It seems neither Bill nor David posts anything except an attack on the other. Dawn . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 (edited) Only someone who is visually impaired would seethese shoes as the same! Jack Jack, your dishonesty in using a lightened MPI film frame which not only expands the borders of Jean's legbecause of the level of contrast that you added to it, but has lost its sharpness of the shoe line during MPI's processing of the image ... only overshadows your being one of the worst people at photo interpretation that ever looked at the evidence in the JFK assassination. look at the overlay animation and tell me how someone could not see the similarities in Jean's two shoe captions. Bill Miller PS. BTW, Jack ... do you now at least admit that you were wrong about Moorman's black shoes not being visible on the Zapruder film? Edited May 16, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Why must these threads nearly always deteriorate into a micturating contest between and among the photo and film folks? The namecalling does nothing to advance the research, and a lot at blackening the image of everyone on both sides of the assassination debate.If you've got issues with someone's methodology, can the debate at least be civil? A simple "I believe you're wrong, and here's why", or "I don't believe you've proved your case, and here's why" would be SO much more productive...in my humble opinion. It's hard to take EITHER position seriously when the primary product becomes insults rather than information. Here here to that. The symposium isn't just about the film alteration, although it's a major part. The main issue, as I see it, is getting this whole rotten episode to start registering on the mainstream media's radar. Bill, you were too quick off the mark in starting another brawl about the Z-film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Why must these threads nearly always deteriorate into a micturating contest between and among the photo and film folks? The namecalling does nothing to advance the research, and a lot at blackening the image of everyone on both sides of the assassination debate Thank you Mark. I was just about to type the same thing. This started out as a very interesting thread til these two got into it. John could I ask you to give the Z film fighters their OWN thread and insist on then limiting their posts TO THIS thread so that the rest of us can continue to enjoy the forum and not have to plow thru these endless and nearly mindless and always nasty posts. Better yet, why don't you two just keep it private. It seems neither Bill nor David posts anything except an attack on the other. Dawn . ****************** Hi Dawn: Glad you and a few others have posted on this thread..with your comments. Many have been reading this what should have been a very important thread and started out to be with great interest...but After this announcement was posted of this meeting in Washington with media coverage, which should have been important to all, but apparently was not.....instead of any good wishes, or such, this was the first post in response..below...and the trying to devert the direction of said thread. I had thought breaking thread was not allowed, but it does continually happen...it then started to digress, as usual..the name calling began... """I hope that regardless of what this experts says ... that he or she will have been throrough enough to address the grain tranfer issues, the contrast and color balance issues, and the other processes of enlarging film and then shrinking it back down that would be noticeable to a film expert. To date, these occurences have been overlooked by the alteration cult leaders ... I will be most interested to see if these issues are finally addressed or if this is just another instance of a photograph expert not knowing things that a film expert would know, thus wasting everyones time. Bil Millerl""" What happened was expected when anyone is attacked,and bang the name calling is immediate.......no one is going to lie down and die....it will not happen...that is exactly what some want and try to do with their bullying ways.. By page two this was posted... """Healy, don't you get tired of masturbating on these forums. You post absolutely nothing in the way of evidence .... in fact you do nothing but xxxxx looking to jump into a post with your Baghdad Bob Healy BS. Now while I agree that Dale Myers cartoon is a farse and he won't debate the facts - but neither did you when faced with the emulsion grain problem when it comes to detecting alterations on a piece of film ... so how are you any different than Myers with the exception he that he knows better than to run his mouth when he has nothing of significance to say. Bill Miller """ Now I can read the ugly words, and go around them, but what of the young people that belong to this Forum, and are exposed to such,I realise some people simpley regard them as words... But I do think that when anyone gets to the point where to express themselves they must start using such words, as "masterbating" they need and should be given a time out...they seem to be of the character and thought that they can do no wrong, this is not their Forum, it belongs to many, and I do think it is time that people like Bill Miller, and or anyone who uses such begin to be chastised for such and learn some respect and show that for the Forum and it s administration and membership....by being given a "time out" and a colling off period... As far as being stuck in a corner somewhere..This is their own thread, and no one must read the Z film threads....no arms are twisted to read any threads.. Anyone can ignore such and read just what they want to, but to me that limits their over all education about the JFK assn...it is part of such....whether anyone approves or not....the Film belongs to the people who paid $16 million dollars for it.....and if they want to discuss that subject they have that right. But not with continuaous bullying tactics..IMO. If there was nothing wrong with the Zapruder film it would not be protected so zealously, and those asking the questions repeatedly attacked...this is nothing new, this has gone on for years...apparently no one, even after paying all that money for said film should have the right to question it, or anything related to it...I personally have always wondered why?? Some say, they the alterationists, spoil all and make all appear as nut bars in public, if so then how come 90% of the people do not believe the WC, they used the Z film frames within their report, to prove that LHO committed the crime, the people also paid for that study the WC, they own it also...what it does is draw attention to the fact there is much wrong within the assassination, and the people lied to.. There are two subjects within the assn that are verboten it seems....questioning the Zapruder film and all it entails,and involes, and the other is the medical evidence Parkland vs Bethesda.......just try it, and see what the response is...when documentation is posted it is ignored..or it is attacked, Weisberg I believe once said something to the effect that when you post the evidence and documentation they leave you alone, because they cannot fight it....see if Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, and such as Penn Jones were here, the air would be blue, and I believe we would be cutting it with a knife....they were fighters, they took the abuse as some still do for many, many years, and guess what, they have been proven correct...in many areas they were the nut bars also... Don't limit yourself to only part of the information on the assassination, IMO, if you do, then there are left out pieces of the puzzle, and though no one person can possible know all, at least they know in a general way and what is being discussed...You can't leave out a piece of that puzzle, to do so makes it incomplete..... The Zapruder film is a huge piece of that puzzle......imo.. It gets to you, as it does to all who follow, on occasion, but not reading or observing and learning is only doing what the Government wishes we would do, stop paying attention .. I don't believe that these men and a woman who have met in Washington today, have done so for the good of their health, they are laying their reputations on the Line, FOR US..and the research world, all of us, even those that do not appreciate their efforts for some reasons,and or down them before the meeting even took place. and in doing what they have done these men and a woman are trying to get the media interested in the long neglect they have shown to the assn...Perhaps they are cheesed off at the Gov right about now, and perhaps enough to sit up and pay some attention.....Then again perhaps the Gov will shut it down immediately, they have in the past, like on Nov 23/63... It takes courage to do what they have done, and I for one give them much credit, and I do not particularly care whether I agree with all of them and their theories or not, this is long overdue...and I say Thank you. I hope these kind of insinuations ,they have made up front, does what I hope it will do, get their attention...and their curiousity peaked....Lord knows, we get no where on here..and never will, as long as threads are allowed to be diverted and bullys are allowed to perform... Dawn you and others do not want to read it, I understand but that is exactly how the bullys want you to feel...and IMO the biggest bully on this Forum is Bill Miller, who should be ashamed of himself for using such words, they are cheap.and he has cheapened his image even further...No one can have a discussion about the Zapruder and the possibilites without it being disrupted....That is what they do, and the sooner that the members recognize that fact, the better they will understand and begin to ask why ?? Don't let them do what the Government wants us to do,to turn the other way and a blind eye, to forget all about the Zapruder film with all it's questions, and stop examing it, and take it for granted there is nothing wrong within it, if you do, then you are complying, and then when you go to the medcial evidence you will find the same thing happening, and soon their will be no questions and after all these years they will have won,and the assn will be forgotten about.....do not allow that to occurr... Too many have worked too hard, lives lost and ruined, to forsake any part of it to it's own little corner, IMO it has to stay out in the open all of it, We don't yell and hollar enough it seems, so many just want to come and read a nice little thread...that is not what this is about, this is serious business about a President of the US being murdered his head blown open in broad daylight in a major US city, if front of his wife, children, citizens and the whole world, and his office and the government taken over....a coup...and should be held in that regard...by all..and you bet Hollared about as loud as one possibely can..... All should be allowed to speak their piece and their opinion, without being afraid to do so, because some bully may come along and ask them for their proof, and or studies, not everyone has, and never will, but that should not stop them from being allowed to do so or and or put on the spot because they dared to......that in MO, should be put a stop to....and if they do not have that proof or study they certainly should not be rediculed as they have been in so many instances on the F by the bullys..... Perhaps Bill and such need to be told that and more often by those that would like to express their opinions without being put in the spot light...So what if they have not got proof have not studied all for many years, have not got a degree, a degree means nothing in this, there are no degrees given out for JFK research......never has been and never will be...anyone should be able to give their opinion ask their question without a bully giving them the third degree....anyone.. Now go ahead and have a field day bullys...you do not affect me, I have been around for too many years into this, to have not run into the likes of you before, and your not near as good as you think you are, have seen lots better, take your best shot, that is all you are worth, just mouth...IMO.you shall be ignored, which is the other way to treat you...bullys are like little boys seeing who can make the most obnoxious noise...When you come upon a bully post just see where it comes from, that will tell you all you need to know.......and speak your piece or not and Let it fall where it may. This is tiresome at times, I agree Dawn, but we dare not ignore it, IMO, we must continue with the studies and fight back....in whichever way we choose.....Some, so few speak out, some do not, that is their perogative...when they feel comfortable enough they will speak out and whatever their opinion is should be respected, and not put down, and not asked for qualifications, and not be derrided in any shape or form..the bullys should back off......they are not doing anything for the reputation of this Forum, nor any good....for anyone..and certainly not for their reputations......imo.. Thanks for your time... B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Here here to that. The symposium isn't just about the film alteration, although it's a major part. The main issue, as I see it, is getting this whole rotten episode to start registering on the mainstream media's radar. Bill, you were too quick off the mark in starting another brawl about the Z-film. Mark, I would not even posted in that thread had Jack not come out calling people 'idiots' over the black and white shoe crap he was pushing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 (edited) Now I can read the ugly words, and go around them, but what of the young people that belong to this Forum, and are exposed to such,I realise some people simpley regard them as words...But I do think that when anyone gets to the point where to express themselves they must start using such words, as "XXXX" they need and should be given a time out...they seem to be of the character and thought that they can do no wrong, this is not their Forum, it belongs to many, and I do think it is time that people like Bill Miller, and or anyone who uses such begin to be chastised for such and learn some respect and show that for the Forum and it s administration and membership....by being given a "time out" and a colling off period... Bernice, I won't apologize for your lack of understanding concerning word useage. Healy has constantly made repeated responses that do not address the topics being discussed. His purpose for trolling these forums and to promote unfounded paranoia to the less intelligent members is not to educate anyone, but to satisfy his own selfish needs. What would you call what he does? David pretends to be educated on photography while at the same time telling us that he has seen no signs of alteration. So which way is it going to be ... if Healy is so educated on Photography and has used his vast knowledge to be able to say he has not seen any signs of alteration, then what in the hell is he doing arguing on behalf of Zfilm alteration ... you cannot have ot both ways. I have already said that I believe he has a cult-like mentality based on faith alone. Let me share with you the term "XXXXX" in the religious sense and how it applies to cults and their purpose for existence .... "Un) In all fairness, the counter argument is that XXXXXX is selfish, and any selfish act is - by definition (due to the word history of) - is a sin. (e.g. selfish = sin, under any circumstances)." I hope we are clear now. Bill PS. "All should be allowed to speak their piece and their opinion, without being afraid to do so, because some bully may come along and ask them for their proof, and or studies, not everyone has, and never will, but that should not stop them from being allowed to do so or and or put on the spot because they dared to......that in MO, should be put a stop to....and if they do not have that proof or study they certainly should not be rediculed as they have been in so many instances on the F by the bullys..... Perhaps Bill and such need to be told that and more often by those that would like to express their opinions without being put in the spot light...So what if they have not got proof have not studied all for many years, have not got a degree, a degree means nothing in this, there are no degrees given out for JFK research......never has been and never will be...anyone should be able to give their opinion ask their question without a bully giving them the third degree....anyone.." I think you have my responses confused with Healy's ... don't let the little quote boxes fool you. I spend countless hours posting information based on the research I have done and from talking to experts. Your selective bias is quite apparent, but this is an eductaion forum designed to offer data to those who wish to learn more about the JFK assassination. This means that opinions should at least be expected to have been formed on good information and solid reasoning and not soley on one's own predjudices or beliefs, after all, there are other forums where you can practices those types of irresponsible behaviors. Edited March 23, 2009 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Perhaps BECAUSE of all the namecalling, I am to the point where the only examination of the Z-film that I am currently taking seriously is that of John Dolva...because I honestly believe he has no axe to grind, and is sincere about seeking the truth. And he often does so in unconventional ways. But John is quick to admit errors, and not so closed-minded as to exclude other possible conclusions out-of-hand, as many of the others do. Will John ultimately arrive at the undisputed truth, beyond even the shadow of a reasonable doubt? That remains to be seen. But I wish him Godspeed in his work, even if it DOES venture into areas of technology with which I'm so unfamiliar as to be completely lost. Now contrast that with the Lamson/Healy/Miller/Colby et al insult-fest. Give me honest research over one-upsmanship and namecalling ANY day. Just MY opinion...void where prohibited, YOUR mileage may vary, and alcohol may intensify side effects, if any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Here here to that. The symposium isn't just about the film alteration, although it's a major part. The main issue, as I see it, is getting this whole rotten episode to start registering on the mainstream media's radar. Bill, you were too quick off the mark in starting another brawl about the Z-film. Mark, I would not even posted in that thread had Jack not come out calling people 'idiots' over the black and white shoe crap he was pushing. Busted. Jack didn't enter this thread until post #11. You referred to the "film alteration cult" in post #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now