David G. Healy Posted July 24, 2004 Author Share Posted July 24, 2004 Ahh, I don't know Mr. Peter's -- you know lines don't mean too much, especially when they're *not* on imagery - I point to your comments regarding JWhite studies and theses, actually I see this nonsense as delay, YOUR delay of the obvious. We might have something to talk about Mr. Peter's IF you had a simple understanding of optical film printing. Of course you've demonstrated NO understanding of even the rudimentary 'basics of optical printing'. Might I suggest you talk to Moe Weitzman, hell -- send David Lifton a note, or even praytell read Lifton's section in Hoax -- he did do a little optical printing himself you know -- talk to Doug Horne he's here on this forum -- a nice guy, too. What I see happening here Mr. Peter's is this, an obvious disregard for work done by noted scientists and researchers and all we hear from the peanut gallery is: they're wrong, trust me -- but don't ask me what my qualifications are when I post material composed of a few lines on a blank sheet that supposedly proves a thesis wrong -- then hide behind Lancer... You do any matte work Mr. Peter's? Till then, I'll be around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 (edited) What I see happening here Mr. Peter's is this, an obvious disregard for work done by noted scientists and researchers and all we hear from the peanut gallery is: they're wrong, trust me -- but don't ask me what my qualifications are when I post material composed of a few lines on a blank sheet that supposedly proves a thesis wrong -- then hide behind Lancer... You sir are a xxxx! I have spent considerable time detailing the mistakes the alteration crowd as made and so far you have not offered a single sentence rebutting anything specific. All you have done is make general replies that don't address anything. Now you mention optical printers and mattes. All you are doing and have admitted to doing is prmoting the idea that alteraion was possible and then tell us you have no proof that it was actually done. Let me give you an example how silly you sound by me saying something equally absurd. Here goes - It is possible that a deer hunter was shooting at a trophy buck on 11/22/63 at 12:30 p.m. CST and his shot went astray and hit JFK in the head at Z313. I have no proof, but it is possible. And for your information - we are not on Lancer - part of the evidence has been detailed before you and I cannot find one specific rebuttal of yours on this site to date. I might also add that this so-called work being done by your scientist and researchers has made them the laughing stock of the JFK assassination community, thus causing several of them to not even be allowed to speak again in the two main Dallas conferences each year. There was a name going around Lancer for a researcher who continually misquoted the facts and the name given to him was "Baghdad Bob". Because of your constant replies about how nothing is being offered to disprove alteration claims as if you cannot see the post before you, are starting to remind me of that very man who kept telling how the Iraqis were winning the war. Edited July 27, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 24, 2004 Author Share Posted July 24, 2004 What I see happening here Mr. Peter's is this, an obvious disregard for work done by noted scientists and researchers and all we hear from the peanut gallery is: they're wrong, trust me -- but don't ask me what my qualifications are when I post material composed of a few lines on a blank sheet that supposedly proves a thesis wrong -- then hide behind Lancer... You sir are a xxxx! dgh01: oh? no need to get upset Mr. Peter's -------------- I have spent considerable time detailing the mistakes the alteration crowd as made and so far you have not offered a single sentence rebutting anything specific. All you have done is make general replies that don't address anything. dgh01: My work is available for ALL to see Mr. Peter's, and yours? ------------- Now you mention optical printers and mattes. All you are doing and have admitted to doing is prmoting the idea that alteraion was possible and then tell us you have no proof that it was actually done. dgh01: promoting? Mr. Peter's as someone thats worked in the "promotion" business for years -- I certainly know the difference between promotion and disinformation -- guess where your nonsense lies? ------------- Let me give you an example how silly you sound by me saying something equally absurd. Here goes - It is possible that a deer hunter was shooting at a trophy buck on 11/22/63 at 12:30 p.m. CST and his shot went astray and hit JFK in the head at Z313. I have no proof, but it is possible. dgh01: this really alerts as to just how serious you are... ------------- And for your information - we are not on Lancer - part of the evidence has been detailed before you and I cannot find one specific rebuttal of yours on this site to date. dgh01: search on Mr. Peter's search on -- Dr. Costella clearly outlines and responds to ALL comments the best the non-alteration camp had to offer... and what do they show up with, NOW? YOU! Pardon me for not getting in a lather... ------------- I might also add that this so-called work being done by your scientist and researchers has made them the laughing stock of the JFK assassination community, thus causing several of them to not even be allowed to speak again in the two main Dallas conferences each year. dgh01: JFK Assassination community? Your not one of those "preservers of history" nuts that cropped up a few years back are you? Those that feign belief in some sort of conspiracy regarding JFK's Assassination? Perpetuate animosity between CT camps all in the hope that the status quo will remain just that -- NO progress, no advancement in what happened that day in Dealey Plaza? ------------- There was a name going around Lancer for a researcher who continually misquoted the facts and the name given to him was "Baghdad Bob". dgh01: Is that so? A few [very good] researchers i.e., ballistics, etc post on ocassion there, some ex-members of the media nose around and post, in general: pretty basic support stuff - so I term the Lancer site 'newbie' JFK related Assassination education and basic CT propoganda - very little research - loads of criticism - zero debate ------------- Because of your constant replies about how nothing is being offered to disprove alteration claims as if you cannot see the post before you, dgh01: you mean the one with the lines on the blank page, that one? Ah, maybe you can start with the exact *provenance* of the Z-frame image used as the template for your lines? You know who[the researcher provided it], what, when, where and why[he/she provided it]Mr. Peter's -- provide a full first generation print of the frame [one that can be verified in writing by KNOWN personnel - none of this phantom stuff, Mr. Peter's], inform us as to what was done to correct the lense distortion [pin cushioning or barrelling], if anything. After all everyone needs to be on the same page when claims are being made, don't you agree? ------------- you're starting to remind me of that very man who kept telling how the Iraqis were winning the wore. dgh01: that's WAR by the way, not wore -- earth to Mr. Peter's -- the US and British [and a few other allies] death toll in Iraq is increasing -- Shrub's Mission Accomplished was/is just a tad premature -- your naivety [did I spell that right, Bill?] is showing. ------------- David Healy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 24, 2004 Author Share Posted July 24, 2004 (edited) disregard - duplicate post DHealy Edited July 24, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 (edited) dgh01: My work is available for ALL to see Mr. Peter's, and yours? You have no work to offer, Mr. Healy. You just make references to alteration being possible, only to admit that you have no specific proof it was done. dgh01: promoting? Mr. Peter's as someone thats worked in the "promotion" business for years -- I certainly know the difference between promotion and disinformation You certainly are a promoter and you have shown the JFK research community that you can do your job without any knowledge about what your promoting and why. While you like to use the excuse that someone hasn't done their own work even though you seem to like citing everyone elses yourself, I have given you ample opportunity to at least state why YOU believe any of the alteration claims are valid based on YOUR OWN interpretation of the evidence and not once have YOU been able to do so. You keep telling the members of this forum that Mr. Costella dealt with the critics. The "gang" that he refers to did not offer anywhere close to the detail of the rebuttal that was offered at Lancer. Here is a sample of 'the gangs" rebuttal ... "B is for Betzner…Zapruder & Sitzman" Jack’s claim of alteration is based on fuzzy blow-ups with inadequate illumination. Lack of detail is not proof of alteration."F is for Franzen…mystery woman" Jack is easily confused, by photos taken from different points of view. "M is for Moorman…in the street" Jack starts with the presumption that Mary is in the street when she takes her famous photo, and ignores all evidence to the contrary. dgh01: search on Mr. Peter's search on -- Dr. Costella clearly outlines and responds to ALL comments the best the non-alteration camp had to offer... What the non-alteration camp said that Costella refers to is shown in part above. Costella, like yourself, has never addressed the more detailed critique on Lancer. dgh01: ..... so I term the Lancer site 'newbie' JFK related Assassination education and basic CT propoganda - very little research - loads of criticism - zero debate So basically, you deem the Lancer site's approach to be the same one that you have been using here on the Education forum - propanganda - little research - loads of criticism - and zero debate. dgh01: you mean the one with the lines on the blank page, that one? Ah, maybe you can start with the exact *provenance* of the Z-frame image used as the template for your lines? That's just the point, Mr. Healy - you cannot follow the simplest of explanations. The illustration was said to be a theoretical example. The rotation of the limo is smooth in the Zapruder film and the distance of rotation between film frames can be plotted. The alteration page you mentioned didn't offer a shred of the evidence that you are asking me to now layout in rebuttal and they are the ones making the claims of alteration in the first place. And how do they do make those alteration claims that was apparently done to your satisfaction ... they show a clip that is played at an incorrect speed and say 'look, the people are moving to fast, thus something has been altered!' Those are the types of reasons that such ground breaking research will not be invited to speak at a major Dallas function ever again. Edited July 24, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 26, 2004 Author Share Posted July 26, 2004 (edited) dgh01: My work is available for ALL to see Mr. Peter's, and yours? You have no work to offer, Mr. Healy. You just make references to alteration being possible, only to admit that you have no specific proof it was done. dgh02: After all this time Mr. Peter's, i do belkeve your beginning to understand ENGLISH -- And regarding the Zapruder film -- I'm definitely leaning in the alteration direction, why? Because folks such as yourself can not show me why it [the z-film] altered -- other than the weak assertion that the Dealey Plaza films are seamless which of course you/gang of 5-10 can't quite get THAT proof together, hence Mr. Peter's - all you do is make noise just that, NOISE! ---------------- dgh01: promoting? Mr. Peter's as someone thats worked in the "promotion" business for years -- I certainly know the difference between promotion and disinformation You certainly are a promoter and you have shown the JFK research community that you can do your job without any knowledge about what your promoting and why. While you like to use the excuse that someone hasn't done their own work even though you seem to like citing everyone elses yourself, I have given you ample opportunity to at least state why YOU believe any of the alteration claims are valid based on YOUR OWN interpretation of the evidence and not once have YOU been able to do so. dgh02: I expect nothing from you Mr. Peter's other than NOISE, with on exception [below] -- you've advanced this case not ONE iota -- parroting what is heard on other 'agenda and profit driven motive' forums regarding JFK doesn't quite cut it! ------------- You keep telling the members of this forum that Mr. Costella dealt with the critics. The "gang" that he refers to did not offer anywhere close to the detail of the rebuttal that was offered at Lancer. Here is a sample of 'the gangs" rebuttal ... dgh02:Nobody at Lancer is qualified to make an educational - technical "guess", let alone prove Dr. Costella thesis as wrong --- ------------- "B is for Betzner…Zapruder & Sitzman" Jack’s claim of alteration is based on fuzzy blow-ups with inadequate illumination. Lack of detail is not proof of alteration."F is for Franzen…mystery woman" Jack is easily confused, by photos taken from different points of view. "M is for Moorman…in the street" Jack starts with the presumption that Mary is in the street when she takes her famous photo, and ignores all evidence to the contrary. dgh02: the exception " Jack this - Jack that -- poor taste Mr. Peter's, attempting to undermine the work done on Moorman 5 street/grass issue without stating why it's being debunked isn't quite fair to the members here, maybe you'll be so kind and explain to the forum members why it's so important to get the Moorman 5 Street/Grass issue cleared up. Then you can step up to plate, present your case - contrary to those that are claiming the Z-film is/may be altered. -------------- dgh01: search on Mr. Peter's search on -- Dr. Costella clearly outlines and responds to ALL comments the best the non-alteration camp had to offer... What the non-alteration camp said that Costella refers to is shown in part above. Costella, like yourself, has never addressed the more detailed critique on Lancer. dgh02: your just going to have to get beyond JWhite, Mr. Peter's. You appear obsessed with him, a few of us here understand though -- why not forget Jack's work, let's get on to the real meaning of your posting here -- LHO was the single; lone killer of JFK; the magic bullet theory is accurate; the Warren Commission got it right... -------------- dgh01: ..... so I term the Lancer site 'newbie' JFK related Assassination education and basic CT propoganda - very little research - loads of criticism - zero debate So basically, you deem the Lancer site's approach to be the same one that you have been using here on the Education forum - propanganda - little research - loads of criticism - and zero debate. dgh02: Lancer site approach is just that: their approach. I could careless how they approach the JFK photo analysis subject, I'm waiting for Y O U R research - right here telling me WHY the Zapruder is or is NOT altered -- pretty simple Mr. Peter's ... The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK. Title is pretty clear... ----------- dgh01: you mean the one with the lines on the blank page, that one? Ah, maybe you can start with the exact *provenance* of the Z-frame image used as the template for your lines? That's just the point, Mr. Healy - you cannot follow the simplest of explanations. The illustration was said to be a theoretical example. dgh02: and here we are: ANOTHER "theoretical" example - that's the extent -- just another opinion hence, more NOISE. ------------- The rotation of the limo is smooth in the Zapruder film and the distance of rotation between film frames can be plotted. The alteration page you mentioned didn't offer a shred of the evidence that you are asking me to now layout in rebuttal and they are the ones making the claims of alteration in the first place. And how do they do make those alteration claims that was apparently done to your satisfaction ... they show a clip that is played at an incorrect speed and say 'look, the people are moving to fast, thus something has been altered!' Those are the types of reasons that such ground breaking research will not be invited to speak at a major Dallas function ever again. dgh02: last major "anything" to happen in Dallas Mr. Peter's was the murder of the President of the United States of America -- Truck on Mr. Peter's, truck on! David Healy Edited July 26, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 (edited) dgh02: After all this time Mr. Peter's, i do belkeve your beginning to understand ENGLISH -- And regarding the Zapruder film -- I'm definitely leaning in the alteration direction, why? Because folks such as yourself can not show me why it [the z-film] altered -- other than the weak assertion that the Dealey Plaza films are seamless which of course you/gang of 5-10 can't quite get THAT proof together, hence Mr. Peter's - all you do is make noise just that, NOISE! If your contention is that you can tell the world the Zapruder film is altered unless someone can prove to you that it's not, then that is an asinine statement on any level. In the section you had witten in the hoax book, you claimed you had no proof that the Zapruder film was altered, now you contradict what you said in the book. You were presented examples as to why the claims of alteration are in error and instead of you being specific about anything, you just say no one can show you why it's not altered. At least I assume that is what you stated from the disjointed and poorly structured sentence you wrote saying "Because folks such as yourself can not show me why it [the z-film] altered ..." dgh02: I expect nothing from you Mr. Peter's other than NOISE, with on exception [below] -- you've advanced this case not ONE iota -- parroting what is heard on other 'agenda and profit driven motive' forums regarding JFK doesn't quite cut it! I disagree, but for arguments sake, let's say you are correct. Please tell me how that is any different than what you have done in every one of your replies? At least I can say why I found someone's claim to be correct or wrong ... I have yet to hear you address one alteration claim in a way that would lead someone to think you might know why you thought an alteration claim was legit. dgh02:Nobody at Lancer is qualified to make an educational - technical "guess", let alone prove Dr. Costella thesis as wrong --- I think anyone who can place Costella's overlay against his Moorman and Hill images taken from the Zapruder film and place them over the same Zfilm images to see if Costella sized them correctly only to find that he made himself a good head or more taller than Charles Brehm is qualified. I'd say anyone who corrected his alleged 27 hour window for alteration of Moorman's #5 Polaroid by pointing out Moorman and her photo was filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination is qualified. I'd say that anyone who can show the gap variances and how far off White, Fetzer and Mantik were, despite Costella flip flopping back and forth only to fall on the alteration side of the fence is qualified. Below are several people's recreation photos of the pedestal to window ratio as seen in Moorman's #5 photograph. Maybe someone should question Costella's credentials. (see gap comparisons below and explain how Costella thought White, Mantic and Fetzer got it right) dgh02: the exception " Jack this - Jack that -- poor taste Mr. Peter's, attempting to undermine the work done on Moorman 5 street/grass issue without stating why it's being debunked isn't quite fair to the members here, ... It's important because Costella supported Jack's poorly researched claim. It's important because you keep talking about Costella's credentials meaning something when his work is shown to be full of poor observations and a lack of knowledge concerning the facts of the case. Keep in mind that this is the same guy who wondered if the CIA had tampered with his cordless razor and bugged the sprinkler system in Dealey Plaza with listening devices. dgh02: your just going to have to get beyond JWhite, Mr. Peter's. You appear obsessed with him, a few of us here understand though -- why not forget Jack's work, let's get on to the real meaning of your posting here -- LHO was the single; lone killer of JFK; the magic bullet theory is accurate; the Warren Commission got it right... I have stated that I believe there was a conspiracy. As I recall - you have defended some of the alteration claims Mr. White made and despite my asking you to expplain why you agree with his, you evade being specific on anything. dgh02: Lancer site approach is just that: their approach. I could careless how they approach the JFK photo analysis subject, I'm waiting for Y O U R research - right here telling me WHY the Zapruder is or is NOT altered -- pretty simple Mr. Peter's ... The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK. Title is pretty clear... I have detailed several opinions here and you just pretend that you don't see them. I explained that Costella had his data wrong when he thought a 27 hour window of time was available to alter Moorman's Polaroid by pointing out the showing of Mary's photo on NBC TV within hours of the assassination, and you pretend that you cannot hear me. I pointed out that Costella's web page has the Zfilm playing at a higher speed than it was recorded, and you ignore it's importance when talking about people being seen moving too fast. I could go back and add all your replies together and not get one specific answer to anything out of it. So because the alterationists either cannot or choose not to defend their position, it, at the least, casts doubt on their thesis; at most for those who have carefully studied those claims, it substantiates their belief that the alterationists have created a deceitful work of fiction far surpassing anything that the Warren Commission accomplished. dgh02: last major "anything" to happen in Dallas Mr. Peter's was the murder of the President of the United States of America -- Truck on Mr. Peter's, truck on!David Healy I thought the last major anything was the work of the alteration geniuses, not forgetting their major discovery of rain sensors with listening devices in them! Edited July 26, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 26, 2004 Author Share Posted July 26, 2004 (edited) dgh02: After all this time Mr. Peter's, i do belkeve your beginning to understand ENGLISH -- And regarding the Zapruder film -- I'm definitely leaning in the alteration direction, why? Because folks such as yourself can not show me why it [the z-film] altered -- other than the weak assertion that the Dealey Plaza films are seamless which of course you/gang of 5-10 can't quite get THAT proof together, hence Mr. Peter's - all you do is make noise just that, NOISE! If your contention is that you can tell the world the Zapruder film is altered unless someone can prove to you that it's not, then that is an asinine statement on any level. In the section you had witten in the hoax book, you claimed you had no proof that the Zapruder film was altered, now you contradict what you said in the book. You were presented examples as to why the claims of alteration are in error and instead of you being specific about anything, you just say no one can show you why it's not altered. At least I assume that is what you stated from the disjointed and poorly structured sentence you wrote saying "Because folks such as yourself can not show me why it [the z-film] altered ..." dgh03: no contradiction at all Mr. Miller/Peter's -- welcome to the world of JFK Assassination motion film analysis -- unless you've completed forensic tests on the Zapruder film - which Rolanda Zavada unfortunately did not do, hence I suspect you haven't -- just more noise. More opinion, no verification from official sources as to the legitemacy of the Z-film. --------------- dgh02: I expect nothing from you Mr. Peter's other than NOISE, with on exception [below] -- you've advanced this case not ONE iota -- parroting what is heard on other 'agenda and profit driven motive' forums regarding JFK doesn't quite cut it! I disagree, but for arguments sake, let's say you are correct. Please tell me how that is any different than what you have done in every one of your replies? At least I can say why I found someone's claim to be correct or wrong ... I have yet to hear you address one alteration claim in a way that would lead someone to think you might know why you thought an alteration claim was legit. dgh03: Mr. Peter's I'm on the record: "the Zapruder film could have, may have been altered by means of film optical printing techniques and effects" Are you on the record Mr. Peter's? Is the Zapruder film altered? Now, I'd like you to tell me the error of my way - are you telling me/us that the use of film mattes in Z-film compositing is impossible or just improbable? Do you even know what a film matte is? If you find this approach to film alteration is wrong, WHY is it wrong? ---------------- dgh02:Nobody at Lancer is qualified to make an educational - technical "guess", let alone prove Dr. Costella thesis as wrong --- I think anyone who can place Costella's overlay against his Moorman and Hill images taken from the Zapruder film and place them over the same Zfilm images to see if Costella sized them correctly only to find that he made himself a good head or more taller than Charles Brehm is qualified. I'd say anyone who corrected his alleged 27 hour window for alteration of Moorman's #5 Polaroid by pointing out Moorman and her photo was filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination is qualified. I'd say that anyone who can show the gap variances and how far off White, Fetzer and Mantik were, despite Costella flip flopping back and forth only to fall on the alteration side of the fence is qualified. Below are several people's recreation photos of the pedestal to window ratio as seen in Moorman's #5 photograph. Maybe someone should question Costella's credentials. (see gap comparisons below and explain how Costella thought White, Mantic and Fetzer got it right) dgh03: Can't question anyones credentials here Bill, we're not sure of who were talking to here, let alone what YOUR creditentials are especially in questioning lettered folks, with known expertise in the given fields -- why don't you give up the ghost and lay out the fact's as your team sees them: tells us why the Z-film can't be altered... tell me why, aerial image processing would be a bad choice for optical printing? ------------------ dgh02: the exception " Jack this - Jack that -- poor taste Mr. Peter's, attempting to undermine the work done on Moorman 5 street/grass issue without stating why it's being debunked isn't quite fair to the members here, ... It's important because Costella supported Jack's poorly researched claim. It's important because you keep talking about Costella's credentials meaning something when his work is shown to be full of poor observations and a lack of knowledge concerning the facts of the case. Keep in mind that this is the same guy who wondered if the CIA had tampered with his cordless razor and bugged the sprinkler system in Dealey Plaza with listening devices. dgh03: My goodness Bill, er, Mr. Peter's - I was present when Dr. Costella corrected Jack on a few things regarding his imagery - evidently your behing the curve on some of this material. ---------------- dgh02: your just going to have to get beyond JWhite, Mr. Peter's. You appear obsessed with him, a few of us here understand though -- why not forget Jack's work, let's get on to the real meaning of your posting here -- LHO was the single; lone killer of JFK; the magic bullet theory is accurate; the Warren Commission got it right... I have stated that I believe there was a conspiracy. As I recall - you have defended some of the alteration claims Mr. White made and despite my asking you to expplain why you agree with his, you evade being specific on anything. dgh03: you do, what part? Can we have that for the record? I defend fellow JFK photo researchers that are attacked needlessly, Mr. Peter's - Jack's research is just that, Jack's, period! Whether I agree or disagree [on most accounts I agree with him, and most certainly are suspicious] with him isn't the issue. Because he's a convienent target is repulsive to myself amonst other's. What I also find offensive Mr. Peter's is never ending researcher baggering. Not to mention, direct or in-direct support by those re: the deeply flawed document, WCR. --------------- dgh02: Lancer site approach is just that: their approach. I could careless how they approach the JFK photo analysis subject, I'm waiting for Y O U R research - right here telling me WHY the Zapruder is or is NOT altered -- pretty simple Mr. Peter's ... The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK. Title is pretty clear... I have detailed several opinions here and you just pretend that you don't see them. I explained that Costella had his data wrong when he thought a 27 hour window of time was available to alter Moorman's Polaroid by pointing out the showing of Mary's photo on NBC TV within hours of the assassination, and you pretend that you cannot hear me. I pointed out that Costella's web page has the Zfilm playing at a higher speed than it was recorded, and you ignore it's importance when talking about people being seen moving too fast. I could go back and add all your replies together and not get one specific answer to anything out of it. So because the alterationists either cannot or choose not to defend their position, it, at the least, casts doubt on their thesis; at most for those who have carefully studied those claims, it substantiates their belief that the alterationists have created a deceitful work of fiction far surpassing anything that the Warren Commission accomplished. dgh03: ah, from the preservers of modern day history! your a little late, Bill -- Next I'm gonna hear about the historical signifigance of Dealey Plaza bus tours -- LOL... So, how fast is Dr. Costella's Z-film animated .gif/.jpg playing? Are you attempting to distract from the info discussed in the Z-film animation, which animated .gif/.jpg -- not many, least of all the Gang of 5-10 has carefuly studied the Z-film alteration claims, who are you kidding? They can't bear the consequences if said proves to be true -- just like yourself... --------------- murder of the President of the United States of America -- Truck on Mr. Peter's, truck on! David Healy I thought the last major anything was the work of the alteration geniuses, not forgetting their major discovery of rain sensors with listening devices in them! dgh03: if nothing else Mr. Peter's you show a distinct lack of humor -- why would rain sensors be plastered all over Dealey Plaza? Seven or eight of them, maybe more! I guess from one side of the street to the other there's significant differences in rain levels, why waste water with all those lawn sprinklers on -- then again there's all sorts of blurring issues from frame to frame in the Z-film - anything is possible, I guess! Hi Gary! David Healy -------------- Edited July 26, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 (edited) dgh03: no contradiction at all Mr. Miller/Peter's -- welcome to the world of JFK Assassination motion film analysis -- unless you've completed forensic tests on the Zapruder film - which Rolanda Zavada unfortunately did not do, hence I suspect you haven't -- just more noise. More opinion, no verification from official sources as to the legitemacy of the Z-film. When did the alterationist have contact with the original Zapruder film? You seem to run a crooked game with double standards. You first complain that test were not run on the original Zfilm to show there was no alteration that took place, but support alteration claims that were not run on the original Zfilm either. You are a seller of snake oil and when confronted with evidence - you call it noise because you have no other way of dealing with it. dgh03: Mr. Peter's I'm on the record: "the Zapruder film could have, may have been altered by means of film optical printing techniques and effects" Are you on the record Mr. Peter's? Is the Zapruder film altered? Now, I'd like you to tell me the error of my way - are you telling me/us that the use of film mattes in Z-film compositing is impossible or just improbable? Do you even know what a film matte is? If you find this approach to film alteration is wrong, WHY is it wrong? I know what a matte is for Groden and I have talked about it many times when he is telling me how much of a nut he thinks you are. You can't even keep it straight as to whether you believe the Zapruder film was altered or not. You say in this reply that it "could" have been altered and the reply before you said, "I'm definitely leaning in the alteration direction" - you sound more like a politician than a researcher. dgh03: Can't question anyones credentials here Bill, we're not sure of who were talking to here, let alone what YOUR creditentials are especially in questioning lettered folks Credentials don't mean anything if you don't know the evidence and that's why I withhold mine. The evidence speaks for itself. Costella can have all the degrees known to mankind, but if he doesn't know Moorman's photo was shown on TV within hours of the assassination - his writing chapters about it having a 27 hour window for alteration is a fallacy on his part based on not having his facts straight. Fetzer and Mantic can also have degrees out their ying-yangs and it doesn't mean much if they think their recreation photo showing the pedestal corner touching the pergola window is what is seen in Moorman's photograph. Again, look below at the attachment and tell me how White and two Ph.Ds tested this LOS on several occasions while thinking they were recreating where Moorman stood and never once noticed that they didn't have the distance between the pedestal and window corners correct? Better yet, explain how it was that even after their error was pointed out to them that they allowed their faulty alignment to go into print several years later as if it promoted Zapruder film alteration? I know ... instead of you explaining it - just call it more noise! dgh03: ..... I defend fellow JFK photo researchers that are attacked needlessly, Mr. Peter's - Jack's research is just that, Jack's, period! Whether I agree or disagree [on most accounts I agree with him, Yet you have not been able to give one example to this forum of an alteration claim of Mr. White's that you believe to be correct and why. You appear to be one of those people who might be considered more of a help by not trying to help at all. So, how fast is Dr. Costella's Z-film animated .gif/.jpg playing? Are you attempting to distract from the info discussed in the Z-film animation, which animated .gif/.jpg The info discussed was presented to it's viewer by putting up a clip of the Zapruder film that is being played too fast. A fair minded person would say that the author of the claim should state the speed at which his clip is playing and why he used a speeded up version in that particular case. dgh03: if nothing else Mr. Peter's you show a distinct lack of humor -- why would rain sensors be plastered all over Dealey Plaza? Seven or eight of them, maybe more! I guess from one side of the street to the other there's significant differences in rain levels, why waste water with all those lawn sprinklers on David Healy One of the things that you guys are noted for is not researching the facts before speaking. Upon hearing these nutty paranoid remarks in TGZFH - some researchers actually called the city to gather information on the sprinkler system in Dealey Plaza and found that there was a city ordinance that prohibits the use of water when it is raining and this explained the need for rain sensors. The rule is part of a conservation plan they implemented. The Plaza is divided up into sections and each section is set on a timer that tells it when to water a particular area. Common sense would tell someone that shaded areas may require less water than those exposed to direct sunlight. An area that has plants may require a different amount of watering than areas where there is just grass. An area where the ground slopes causing a quicker run-off would absorb less water than a section that would have a slower run-off or even flat and would have a higher absorption rate. No, Mr. Healy, all it takes is a little effort to seek out the answers before going overboard and thinking that the world is out to get you. For anyone wanting to read about the rain sensor fiasco, they can do so at - http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejoejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm Edited July 27, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 28, 2004 Author Share Posted July 28, 2004 (edited) dgh03: no contradiction at all Mr. Miller/Peter's -- welcome to the world of JFK Assassination motion film analysis -- unless you've completed forensic tests on the Zapruder film - which Rolanda Zavada unfortunately did not do, hence I suspect you haven't -- just more noise. More opinion, no verification from official sources as to the legitemacy of the Z-film. When did the alterationist have contact with the original Zapruder film? You seem to run a crooked game with double standards. You first complain that test were not run on the original Zfilm to show there was no alteration that took place, but support alteration claims that were not run on the original Zfilm either. You are a seller of snake oil and when confronted with evidence - you call it noise because you have no other way of dealing with it. dgh04: may of been within 24 hours, actually - sooner! If it was altered! Double standards? Even Roland Zavada wanted to do density tests on the Z-film Mr. Peter's! Are you sure you should be carrying the water bucket for the non-allteration gang of 5-10 Mr. Peter's -- this must be embarassing for you? ------------- dgh03: Mr. Peter's I'm on the record: "the Zapruder film could have, may have been altered by means of film optical printing techniques and effects" Are you on the record Mr. Peter's? Is the Zapruder film altered? Now, I'd like you to tell me the error of my way - are you telling me/us that the use of film mattes in Z-film compositing is impossible or just improbable? Do you even know what a film matte is? If you find this approach to film alteration is wrong, WHY is it wrong? I know what a matte is for Groden and I have talked about it many times when he is telling me how much of a nut he thinks you are. You can't even keep it straight as to whether you believe the Zapruder film was altered or not. You say in this reply that it "could" have been altered and the reply before you said, "I'm definitely leaning in the alteration direction" - you sound more like a politician than a researcher. dgh04: Groden is commenting? roflmfao! He still hawking pictures in Dealey Plaza -- He probably has the time, according to David Lifton piece in HOAX - ole Moe Weitzman wasn't happy about wayward protege Groden and his escapades with the Zapruder 35mm optical prints under his [Weitzmans] care (you can read all about that, Pig on a Leash - in HOAX...) For someone thats looking for credibility Mr. Peter's you keep strange company. Did Mr. Groden get that "selling autopsy pictures controversy cleared up -- and that farce about the Bruno Magli shoes in the OJ case? Groden claiming altered photos, good God Mr. Peter's Maybe you can ask Mr. Groden: "could" the shoe photos have been altered? ------------- dgh03: Can't question anyones credentials here Bill, we're not sure of who were talking to here, let alone what YOUR creditentials are especially in questioning lettered folks Credentials don't mean anything if you don't know the evidence and that's why I withhold mine. The evidence speaks for itself. Costella can have all the degrees known to mankind, but if he doesn't know Moorman's photo was shown on TV within hours of the assassination - his writing chapters about it having a 27 hour window for alteration is a fallacy on his part based on not having his facts straight. Fetzer and Mantic can also have degrees out their ying-yangs and it doesn't mean much if they think their recreation photo showing the pedestal corner touching the pergola window is what is seen in Moorman's photograph. Again, look below at the attachment and tell me how White and two Ph.Ds tested this LOS on several occasions while thinking they were recreating where Moorman stood and never once noticed that they didn't have the distance between the pedestal and window corners correct? Better yet, explain how it was that even after their error was pointed out to them that they allowed their faulty alignment to go into print several years later as if it promoted Zapruder film alteration? I know ... instead of you explaining it - just call it more noise! dgh04: I suspect withholding YOUR credentials is fabrication, but that's okay, serious folks get on the record, which allows you guys something to shoot for - send Dr. Costella a email, ask him about Moorman...you've done that, yes? Ah -- who has proved "faulty alignment" regarding Dr. Mantik and Fetzer's recreation - Bill Miller, Gary Mack, Josiah Thompson? who? Where is the data posted? Let's get on the ball here, your making accusations -- where's the BEEF? Why do you care? ---------------- dgh03: ..... I defend fellow JFK photo researchers that are attacked needlessly, Mr. Peter's - Jack's research is just that, Jack's, period! Whether I agree or disagree [on most accounts I agree with him, Yet you have not been able to give one example to this forum of an alteration claim of Mr. White's that you believe to be correct and why. You appear to be one of those people who might be considered more of a help by not trying to help at all. So, how fast is Dr. Costella's Z-film animated .gif/.jpg playing? Are you attempting to distract from the info discussed in the Z-film animation, which animated .gif/.jpg The info discussed was presented to it's viewer by putting up a clip of the Zapruder film that is being played too fast. A fair minded person would say that the author of the claim should state the speed at which his clip is playing and why he used a speeded up version in that particular case. dgh04: translation ---> Mr. Peter's or whomever doesn't know - why does that not surprise me/us -------- dgh03: if nothing else Mr. Peter's you show a distinct lack of humor -- why would rain sensors be plastered all over Dealey Plaza? Seven or eight of them, maybe more! I guess from one side of the street to the other there's significant differences in rain levels, why waste water with all those lawn sprinklers on David Healy One of the things that you guys are noted for is not researching the facts before speaking. Upon hearing these nutty paranoid remarks in TGZFH - some researchers actually called the city to gather information on the sprinkler system in Dealey Plaza and found that there was a city ordinance that prohibits the use of water when it is raining and this explained the need for rain sensors. dgh04: they did? Who did they talk to? Why are there more rainsensors in Dealey Plaza than most PGA rated golf courses? ---------- The rule is part of a conservation plan they implemented. The Plaza is divided up into sections and each section is set on a timer that tells it when to water a particular area. Common sense would tell someone that shaded areas may require less water than those exposed to direct sunlight. An area that has plants may require a different amount of watering than areas where there is just grass. An area where the ground slopes causing a quicker run-off would absorb less water than a section that would have a slower run-off or even flat and would have a higher absorption rate. No, Mr. Healy, all it takes is a little effort to seek out the answers before going overboard and thinking that the world is out to get you. dgh04: you may be onto something here Mr. Peter's, we'll reserve a special place in history for you. It's amazing - the manpower, time and effort that goes into debunking a rainsensor claim. Simply amazing, the lengths that the non-film/photo alteration camp will go at **NOT** posting... never mind, I'm just repeating myself --------- For anyone wanting to read about the rain sensor fiasco, they can do so at - http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejoejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm dgh04: that the same Joe Durnavitch that made the claim the Stemmons sign was NOT changed? He the guy that proved it with a 3d program called Povray? If so, might want to ask him if he recalls, we communicated about the Povray source code (a version of C++) he used. I explained to him I'm quite familiar with the program, have been since early 90's. Requested he send me the exact code he used and the topo .inc file of Dealey Plaza so I could verify his findings -- never heard from him again - I believe the gangs "Povray" Stemmons Fwy's sign website came down right after that, could be wrong about the website! -- Hey listen seeing that your dealing with the heavy hitters on the other side of the argument, maybe you could get them to send me the material I requested. When that happens I'll show you how you too alter 'reality' using a great public domain 3D program like POV-RAY [tm] truck on Mr. Peter's, truch on! -------------- <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Edited July 28, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 (edited) dgh04: may of been within 24 hours, actually - sooner! If it was altered! Double standards? If it was altered? I thought TGZFH said it was altered! dgh04: Groden is commenting? roflmfao! He still hawking pictures in Dealey Plaza -- He probably has the time, according to David Lifton piece in HOAX - ole Moe Weitzman wasn't happy about wayward protege Groden and his escapades with the Zapruder 35mm optical prints under his [Weitzmans] care (you can read all about that, Pig on a Leash - in HOAX...) I often wondered why the book acted like it was a mystery where the different versions of the Zapruder film came from. Did Lifton forget that it was Groden who supplied him with his copy? dgh04: ... send Dr. Costella a email, ask him about Moorman... What would I ask Mr. Costella? Why he didn't know that Moorman and her photo was taped for airing just 30 minutes following the assassination and then shown on TV within 3 hours? Would I ask him if he knew that before that taping that Mary was the only person who had possession of her photo? Would he then tell me that maybe Mary Moorman possibly altered her own photo within that 30 minute window of time? The bottom line is that Costella screwed up and you're still trying to make excuses for him. Maybe it is Costella that should email me if he has any questions about Moorman's photograph. I'll be happy to walk him through the gap difference between Mary's photo and the alleged recreation that White, Fetzer and Mantik did. I have put up the Moorman and White example again. Maybe if you look at it long enough and follow the arrows closely - you will spot the gap difference between the upper left corner of the pedestal and the lower right corner of the pergola window in the background. Once you finally get that far - I'll then try and explain to you how that shows that White, Fetzer and Mantik had their camera too low and to the right from where Moorman stood. I will also explain how that incorrect line of sight is what Costella not only failed to see, but allowed him to say Moorman's standing height on that LOS only brought her up to his shirt button. The example shown below leaves three possibilities as to how White and three Ph.Ds made such an error. One option is they made it on purpose to promote Zapruder film alteration. The other possibility as they didn't know what they were doing. The third option is they were all blind as bats to not see that gap difference between their recreation photo and Moorman's. I've added an animation and I'll let everyone choose which ever excuse they think best fits these four alterationist. See the Attachment below dgh04: they did? Who did they talk to? Why are there more rainsensors in Dealey Plaza than most PGA rated golf courses? Let me answer this question with another question. How many PGA golf courses can you name that is under a water restriction ordinance that says wasting water during a rain is illegal? A rain sensor would not be needed unless such an ordinance existed and in Dallas, Texas such an ordinance does exist. The reasons for the rain sensors in Dealey Plaza was explained and should have been easily understood. I will repeat it once again so maybe the second time reading it will allow you to make some sense out if it. The rule is part of a conservation plan they implemented. The Plaza is divided up into sections and each section is set on a timer that tells it when to water a particular area. Common sense would tell someone that shaded areas may require less water than those exposed to direct sunlight. An area that has plants may require a different amount of watering than areas where there is just grass. An area where the ground slopes causing a quicker run-off would absorb less water than a section that would have a slower run-off or possibly be flat and would have a higher absorption rate. No, Mr. Healy, all it takes is a little effort to seek out the answers before going overboard and thinking that the world is out to get you. dgh04: you may be onto something here Mr. Peter's, we'll reserve a special place in history for you. It's amazing - the manpower, time and effort that goes into debunking a rainsensor claim. It's not just amazing, but rather a needless shame! Anyone can just spout out claims. The term is called throwing crap on the wall to see if anything sticks. These claims take no effort to make up off the top of one's head. The shame of it is that manpower has to be wasted to expose the errors in these claims so people with less knowldge of the Plaza and the assassination photos won't be taken in by people who are supposed to be responsible researchers. For anyone wanting to read about the rain sensor fiasco, they can do so at - http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejoejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm dgh04: that the same Joe Durnavitch that made the claim the Stemmons sign was NOT changed? He the guy that proved it with a 3d program called Povray? If so, might want to ask him if he recalls, we communicated about the Povray source code (a version of C++) he used. I explained to him I'm quite familiar with the program, have been since early 90's. Requested he send me the exact code he used and the topo .inc file of Dealey Plaza so I could verify his findings -- never heard from him again I am guessing that Mr. Durnavitch probably figured that someone who couldn't see the gap variance between the pedestal and the pergola window in Moorman's photo Vs. White, Fetzer and Mantik's recreation, or someone who couldn't reason out why the Dealey Plaza had rain sensors installed across it, just didn't have the common sense or ability to understand his 3D program. Edited July 28, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 dgh04: may of been within 24 hours, actually - sooner! If it was altered! Double standards? If it was altered? I thought TGZFH said it was altered! dgh04: Groden is commenting? roflmfao! He still hawking pictures in Dealey Plaza -- He probably has the time, according to David Lifton piece in HOAX - ole Moe Weitzman wasn't happy about wayward protege Groden and his escapades with the Zapruder 35mm optical prints under his [Weitzmans] care (you can read all about that, Pig on a Leash - in HOAX...) I often wondered why the book acted like it was a mystery where the different versions of the Zapruder film came from. Did Lifton forget that it was Groden who supplied him with his copy? dgh04: ... send Dr. Costella a email, ask him about Moorman... What would I ask Mr. Costella? Why he didn't know that Moorman and her photo was taped for airing just 30 minutes following the assassination and then shown on TV within 3 hours? Would I ask him if he knew that before that taping that Mary was the only person who had possession of her photo? Would he then tell me that maybe Mary Moorman possibly altered her own photo within that 30 minute window of time? The bottom line is that Costella screwed up and you're still trying to make excuses for him. Maybe it is Costella that should email me if he has any questions about Moorman's photograph. I'll be happy to walk him through the gap difference between Mary's photo and the alleged recreation that White, Fetzer and Mantik did. I have put up the Moorman and White example again. Maybe if you look at it long enough and follow the arrows closely - you will spot the gap difference between the upper left corner of the pedestal and the lower right corner of the pergola window in the background. Once you finally get that far - I'll then try and explain to you how that shows that White, Fetzer and Mantik had their camera too low and to the right from where Moorman stood. I will also explain how that incorrect line of sight is what Costella not only failed to see, but allowed him to say Moorman's standing height on that LOS only brought her up to his shirt button. The example shown below leaves three possibilities as to how White and three Ph.Ds made such an error. One option is they made it on purpose to promote Zapruder film alteration. The other possibility as they didn't know what they were doing. The third option is they were all blind as bats to not see that gap difference between their recreation photo and Moorman's. I've added an animation and I'll let everyone choose which ever excuse they think best fits these four alterationist. See the Attachment below dgh04: they did? Who did they talk to? Why are there more rainsensors in Dealey Plaza than most PGA rated golf courses? Let me answer this question with another question. How many PGA golf courses can you name that is under a water restriction ordinance that says wasting water during a rain is illegal? A rain sensor would not be needed unless such an ordinance existed and in Dallas, Texas such an ordinance does exist. The reasons for the rain sensors in Dealey Plaza was explained and should have been easily understood. I will repeat it once again so maybe the second time reading it will allow you to make some sense out if it. The rule is part of a conservation plan they implemented. The Plaza is divided up into sections and each section is set on a timer that tells it when to water a particular area. Common sense would tell someone that shaded areas may require less water than those exposed to direct sunlight. An area that has plants may require a different amount of watering than areas where there is just grass. An area where the ground slopes causing a quicker run-off would absorb less water than a section that would have a slower run-off or possibly be flat and would have a higher absorption rate. No, Mr. Healy, all it takes is a little effort to seek out the answers before going overboard and thinking that the world is out to get you. dgh04: you may be onto something here Mr. Peter's, we'll reserve a special place in history for you. It's amazing - the manpower, time and effort that goes into debunking a rainsensor claim. It's not just amazing, but rather a needless shame! Anyone can just spout out claims. The term is called throwing crap on the wall to see if anything sticks. These claims take no effort to make up off the top of one's head. The shame of it is that manpower has to be wasted to expose the errors in these claims so people with less knowldge of the Plaza and the assassination photos won't be taken in by people who are supposed to be responsible researchers. For anyone wanting to read about the rain sensor fiasco, they can do so at - http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejoejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm dgh04: that the same Joe Durnavitch that made the claim the Stemmons sign was NOT changed? He the guy that proved it with a 3d program called Povray? If so, might want to ask him if he recalls, we communicated about the Povray source code (a version of C++) he used. I explained to him I'm quite familiar with the program, have been since early 90's. Requested he send me the exact code he used and the topo .inc file of Dealey Plaza so I could verify his findings -- never heard from him again I am guessing that Mr. Durnavitch probably figured that someone who couldn't see the gap variance between the pedestal and the pergola window in Moorman's photo Vs. White, Fetzer and Mantik's recreation, or someone who couldn't reason out why the Dealey Plaza had rain sensors installed across it, just didn't have the common sense or ability to understand his 3D program. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ORDINARILY I DO NOT READ NOR RESPOND TO MR. PETERS/MILLER'S RAVINGS, BUT I NOTICED HIS POSTING OF THE LONG-AGO DISCREDITED "GAP" IN THE MOORMAN PIC, AND I MUST PROVIDE AN ANTIDOTE. It was several years ago that the GANG created a FAKE GAP using their famous DRUM SCAN. This "gap" does not exist on good copies of Moorman. Just setting the record straight for those who might fall for this discredited disinformation. Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 28, 2004 Author Share Posted July 28, 2004 dgh04: may of been within 24 hours, actually - sooner! If it was altered! Double standards? If it was altered? I thought TGZFH said it was altered! dgh05: According to Dr. Costella not only altered, a complete fabrication! His conclusions and findings are based on tests and analysis of the "best" imagery available -- Be nice if we had access to test the film density of the Z-film alledged camera original and the "3 optical prints". Wasn't it Roland Zavada that requested the same -- who turned him down and why? ------------ dgh04: Groden is commenting? roflmfao! He still hawking pictures in Dealey Plaza -- He probably has the time, according to David Lifton piece in HOAX - ole Moe Weitzman wasn't happy about wayward protege Groden and his escapades with the Zapruder 35mm optical prints under his [Weitzmans] care (you can read all about that, Pig on a Leash - in HOAX...) I often wondered why the book acted like it was a mystery where the different versions of the Zapruder film came from. Did Lifton forget that it was Groden who supplied him with his copy? dgh05: David Lifton cover that whole subject quite nicely - more, I'm sure than Robert Groden cared for! ------------- dgh04: ... send Dr. Costella a email, ask him about Moorman... What would I ask Mr. Costella? Why he didn't know that Moorman and her photo was taped for airing just 30 minutes following the assassination and then shown on TV within 3 hours? Would I ask him if he knew that before that taping that Mary was the only person who had possession of her photo? Would he then tell me that maybe Mary Moorman possibly altered her own photo within that 30 minute window of time? The bottom line is that Costella screwed up and you're still trying to make excuses for him. Maybe it is Costella that should email me if he has any questions about Moorman's photograph. I'll be happy to walk him through the gap difference between Mary's photo and the alleged recreation that White, Fetzer and Mantik did. I have put up the Moorman and White example again. Maybe if you look at it long enough and follow the arrows closely - you will spot the gap difference between the upper left corner of the pedestal and the lower right corner of the pergola window in the background. Once you finally get that far - I'll then try and explain to you how that shows that White, Fetzer and Mantik had their camera too low and to the right from where Moorman stood. I will also explain how that incorrect line of sight is what Costella not only failed to see, but allowed him to say Moorman's standing height on that LOS only brought her up to his shirt button. The example shown below leaves three possibilities as to how White and three Ph.Ds made such an error. One option is they made it on purpose to promote Zapruder film alteration. The other possibility as they didn't know what they were doing. The third option is they were all blind as bats to not see that gap difference between their recreation photo and Moorman's. I've added an animation and I'll let everyone choose which ever excuse they think best fits these four alterationist. See the Attachment below Why praytell, does a few researchers doing tests in Dealey Plaza with surveyors equipment create such a stir? Absolute foolishness - unless of curse there's something to hide -- personally, I find the Moorman street/grass issue a moot point - there's plenty of other evidence on the record, such as the FBI/SS recreation that states: 3 shots - 3 hits Z-276, 313 and 358 thereabouts. But that blows the Z-film completly out of the water doesn't it? Then that is that nasty Tague fleshwound situation cropped up. The birth of the **magic bullet ** - the rest is, quote 'offical' unquote, history! ----------- dgh04: they did? Who did they talk to? Why are there more rainsensors in Dealey Plaza than most PGA rated golf courses? Let me answer this question with another question. How many PGA golf courses can you name that is under a water restriction ordinance that says wasting water during a rain is illegal? dgh05: probably every golf course in Las Vegas [and there are many PGA rated golf courses there], I suspect the same for Pheonix and surrounding area -- shall I go on? ---------- A rain sensor would not be needed unless such an ordinance existed and in Dallas, Texas such an ordinance does exist. The reasons for the rain sensors in Dealey Plaza was explained and should have been easily understood. I will repeat it once again so maybe the second time reading it will allow you to make some sense out if it. The rule is part of a conservation plan they implemented. The Plaza is divided up into sections and each section is set on a timer that tells it when to water a particular area. Common sense would tell someone that shaded areas may require less water than those exposed to direct sunlight. An area that has plants may require a different amount of watering than areas where there is just grass. An area where the ground slopes causing a quicker run-off would absorb less water than a section that would have a slower run-off or possibly be flat and would have a higher absorption rate. No, Mr. Healy, all it takes is a little effort to seek out the answers before going overboard and thinking that the world is out to get you. dgh04: you may be onto something here Mr. Peter's, we'll reserve a special place in history for you. It's amazing - the manpower, time and effort that goes into debunking a rainsensor claim. It's not just amazing, but rather a needless shame! Anyone can just spout out claims. The term is called throwing crap on the wall to see if anything sticks. These claims take no effort to make up off the top of one's head. The shame of it is that manpower has to be wasted to expose the errors in these claims so people with less knowldge of the Plaza and the assassination photos won't be taken in by people who are supposed to be responsible researchers. dgh05: I suspect the same type of intransigence arose amongst the flat earth society For anyone wanting to read about the rain sensor fiasco, they can do so at - http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejoejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm dgh04: that the same Joe Durnavitch that made the claim the Stemmons sign was NOT changed? He the guy that proved it with a 3d program called Povray? If so, might want to ask him if he recalls, we communicated about the Povray source code (a version of C++) he used. I explained to him I'm quite familiar with the program, have been since early 90's. Requested he send me the exact code he used and the topo .inc file of Dealey Plaza so I could verify his findings -- never heard from him again I am guessing that Mr. Durnavitch probably figured that someone who couldn't see the gap variance between the pedestal and the pergola window in Moorman's photo Vs. White, Fetzer and Mantik's recreation, or someone who couldn't reason out why the Dealey Plaza had rain sensors installed across it, just didn't have the common sense or ability to understand his 3D program. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> dgh05: Ah, another guess! Maybe someone told him just what the actual gap measurement was all about? In any case Mr. Durnavitch 3D exercise in futility was about the Stemmons Freeway sign, NOT the pergola-pedestal gap analysis...Thank you. David Healy ------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 (edited) ORDINARILY I DO NOT READ NOR RESPOND TO MR. PETERS/MILLER'S RAVINGS,BUT I NOTICED HIS POSTING OF THE LONG-AGO DISCREDITED "GAP" IN THE MOORMAN PIC, AND I MUST PROVIDE AN ANTIDOTE. It was several years ago that the GANG created a FAKE GAP using their famous DRUM SCAN. This "gap" does not exist on good copies of Moorman. Just setting the record straight for those who might fall for this discredited disinformation. Jack White Mr. White - They say there are intelligent people who make mistakes and there are ignorant people who make mistakes - the difference being that an ignorant person doesn't know when to admit he or she has made a mistake. You just accused Josiah Thompson of creating a faked image rather than you admit your own mistake. The charge is a serious one to say the least. Below is the Moorman photo that appears in Robert Groden's book on page 34 of "The Killing of a President." That particular Moorman photo Groden used is not from the Thompson drum scan and is clearly seen without the fingerprint on it. It too, has the same noticeable gap on it as the Thompson Drum scan. Are we to finally hear you say that you totally screwed up or are you going to now accuse Robert Groden of faking the gap so many years earlier and well before your 'Moorman in the Street' claim was invented? Some of you people have taken the low road at every turn and there can be no doubt that for you to believe Josiah Thompson faked the drum scan to create a gap, you'd be the first one to post your copy of the Moorman Polaroid that shows "no" gap present. The fact is there is no such photo - is there Mr. White! You certainly didn't show such a photo in TGZFH. Instead you placed your replica photo next to a crop from the Moorman photo and that's what Bill Miller used to check your work. It was your own evidence, your own example images of alteration that was used to check your claim of photo and film alteration to see if it was valid or not. Dating back to when Moorman's photo was first seen on NBC just hours after the assassination there was a gap present. You may think I relish in pointing out your deceitful ways, but it actually shames me. You did such good work in the early years and now you have opted to blame your mistakes on everyone else, but yourself. You owe Mr. Josiah Thompson an apology the next time you see him in my opinion. All scans below are from page 34 of Groden's book 'TKOAP'. Edited July 28, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 (edited) If it was altered? I thought TGZFH said it was altered! dgh05: According to Dr. Costella not only altered, a complete fabrication! But that is coming from a guy who couldn't either see the gap between the pedestal and the window or did see it and didn't know what it meant. That's coming from a guy who didn't even bother to see if Moorman's photo was made public before he wrote a chapter dealing with a 27 hour window of time that has been shown to have been closed within 30 minutes of the assassination. That's coming from a guy who jumped to the conclusion the CIA tampered with his cordless electric razor so to make it come on in his luggage at the airport. That's also coming from the same guy who never bothered to find out why Dealey Plaza had rain sensors on it's grounds before coming up with notion that the plaza was bugged so to spy in on their ground breaking Moorman being in the street work. Yes, Costella says the Zapruder film is a fabrication - so what! Saying it and showing it is two different things and you of all people should know that. Edited July 28, 2004 by Larry Peters 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