David G. Healy Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 and others with interest. Here you go Mr. Peter's, Few hours early... but, what the hay! Hope the included link helps clarify and answers some of those nagging questions you might have, big waste of time to debate something you nor I can prove of disprove, unless of course you have access to films and photo's [for verification purposes] of the JFKassassination that we MERE mortals do not have - Here's a great a starting point for your OWN, original research. This field has so little of that, original research - it's a shame. Plenty of debunker's though, screaming Nellies if you will! So try out the site, you'll find the GANG'S responses to TGZFH, guess it was around early October '03 that the heat rose, they got a early start on us, evidently a manuscript of the book made the rounds, it was originally sent to Dr. Cyril Wecht, the Patholigist for comments somehow or other Tink Thompson got hold of it, there was a big flap, really messy. [Welcome to the big leagues regarding the Assassination of a sitting US President] Same kind of stuff beginning here -- slam Jack White and his research -- yadada, yadada, yadada! So: here it is - been there since November '03, surprised your search engine had difficulty finding it! http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/ Full index and opening explanations [of what HOAX is - for those that don't have the book] re: the responses to the gang's challenges and comments, then presenter by presenter answers regarding what was challenged and most interesting what was NOT challenged - on the same Main page you'll find hyperlinks to the Gangs website that was set up for immediate attack after the release of HOAX. Most of it is/was nonsense, with the exception of Ron. He's a worthy opponent. All presenters, present and accounted for with the exception of Roland Zavada, a shame he backed out on the eve of the May 2003 together at the University of Minnesota. Now is the time to get educated Mr. Peter's. Most of us, this side of the aisle, took the time to understand the breadth of the situation. Hopfully you'll do the same! One thing is for sure, we do know if one has understanding of basic film/photo composing techniques. And speak with some authority - you have ANY science in your background? Physics perhaps? Optics generally, Optical Film printers specifically? For the lurkers with interest in this fascinating subject, I invite you to peruse the website via the included link (http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/) - a wealth of knowledge regarding the film/photo side of this tragedy can be obtained there -- Dr. John Costella writes so the layman can understand quite easily, he is a teacher after all, a great one in fact! He's also a member of your forum AND my home forum, JFKResearch.com under the auspices of Rich DellaRosa, also a great researcher. Questions? Drop me a e-mail through this forum, reasonable requests will be forwarded to the appropriate author, whether the answer is another story, but most of the book's contributors find the time to respond to other contributors fowarded queries -- or, just come by http://www.jfkresearch.com If I've offended any forum member with my comments to Mr. Peter's, I apologize. Unfortunately I have a tough time with parrots of misinformation - we've dealt with hundred's of them, I'm sorry to see one appear here, there will be more. This is a controversial subject, the photos and films add another layer to the controversy, it will not - however, go away! Here it is again: http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/ (ALL hyper-links are on the main page, even mine - buy the book, ALL proceeds that I'm aware of go back to the research community) Best regard's to ALL, David Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 (edited) Hope the included link helps clarify and answers some of those nagging questions you might have, big waste of time to debate something you nor I can prove of disprove, unless of course you have access to films and photo's [for verification purposes] That's the beauty of all this, Mr. Healy. You see, we can use the same images that Mr. White used to test his claims which make up nearly all of the photo and film alteration asssertions in TGZFH. It should be worth noting that the claims of photo and film alteration have nothing to do with having the originals for Mr. White pointed out what he believed to be discrepancies within the film and photo images he used. The test is whether he read the images correctly. I will go see each and every answer that the link may provide, which I am sure I have alreay seen in TGZFH, but let me remind you of something first. It's an old school boys trick that when confronted with a book report that the child only cites generalities, much the same way you have done each and every time I asked you a specific question concerning Miller's critique on Lancer's site. Putting up a link and saying the answers can be found there is another avasive stunt in my view. I will play along, but expect some questions and points to be raised and I hope that you will be prepared to address these issues better than you have done so far. So try out the site, you'll find the GANG'S responses to TGZFH, guess it was around early October '03 that the heat rose, they got a early start on us, evidently a manuscript of the book made the rounds, it was originally sent to Dr. Cyril Wecht, the Patholigist for comments somehow or other Tink Thompson got hold of it, there was a big flap, really messy. I have seen "the Gangs" responses some time ago and that is why I drew your attention to Miller's critique for it was far more graphical and extensive. I suspect that is why you have avoided it and are now pointing me to a lesser detailed critique. [Welcome to the big leagues regarding the Assassination of a sitting US President] Same kind of stuff beginning here -- slam Jack White and his research -- yadada, yadada, yadada! I would think Cyril Wecht is in the big league and implying that Josiah Thompson has a hold on Wecht is absurd. Cyril Wecht bucked the official version because he says and does what he believes to be right. Trying to get anyone to believe that he is influenced by Thompson is just a way to hide the fact that Wecht doesn't want to be connected with such sloppy research. "Yadda, Yadda, Yadda" is a perfect example of the type of unspecific responses you have given so far. So: here it is - been there since November '03, surprised your search engine had difficulty finding it! http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/ I have the book, so unless this site offers more than what's in the book, then you haven't given me anything I haven't seen before. Like I said before - Hepler's responses wasn't nearly as detailed as Miller's critique on Lancer, so be prepared to be a bit more specfic in the future. All presenters, present and accounted for with the exception of Roland Zavada, a shame he backed out on the eve of the May 2003 together at the University of Minnesota. It seems that I read where about 30 people showed up for that Minnesota conference and many of them were said to be the presenters. It could be that Zavada didn't feel it necessary to address a small group that has no credibility in the majority of the JFK Research Community. Most of us, this side of the aisle, took the time to understand the breadth of the situation. Yet you have been unable to address and specifics about the critique on Lancer - how interesting! Questions? Drop me a e-mail through this forum, reasonable requests will be forwarded to the appropriate author, I will offer points and questions on this thread so everyone can see them. I would think that you have read TGZFH and must feel that you have understood the points made within it, so maybe you won't have to bother the authors unless you get hung up on something really big. Never-the-less it will be interesting to get a response from anyone that may be somewhat specific in their reply. If I've offended any forum member with my comments to Mr. Peter's, I apologize. From some of the emails I have gotten so far - the only thing you done that might be considered offensive is to run up nonresponsive replies that never specifically addressed the issues presented to you. People want to see an intelligent and to the point response because this is after all ... an education forum. Hopefully such responses will be forthcoming in the future. Edited July 10, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 (edited) Someone may want to spell check the web pages on the alteration site. Right off I noticed that the word "realise" should have been spelled "realize". I also see why you wanted to refer to "the Gangs" critique when it came to Jack White's photo and film claims of alteration. Here is one of the critiques offered by Ron Hepler and while the point he makes is valid, it isn't detailed in any way. "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. Now for Miller's critique - http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...=12&topic_id=27 Edited July 10, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ville huoponen Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 (edited) We are not going to get anywhere with this Z-film alteration issue unless the authors of the The Great Zapruder Film Hoax agree that Bill Miller´s critiques are in most cases correct. Let´s face it friends - there is no good reason to assume anymore for example that Mary Moorman was in the street. First of all she said she wasn´t in the street at the time, then there is the altgens #6 - if and when authentic - the shadows show where they were and thirdly the shoe issue that was fully explained by Miller. All easy to understand. Kudos to him allthough Mr. Miller certainly is not a great communicator. Having said that I need to emphasize that Miller´s findings do not prove the authenticity of the film. There are many more issues still to be resolved and many of the points in the rebuttal of the book TGZFH did not impress me. Bill Greer´s rapid head turn was however one of those good rebuttals they made and I believe this issue is now settled. Since I don´t have right now the trilogy in my hands to make some comments I have to resort to some would perhaps say empty rhetorics but I will say this once again. I believe it is absolutely essential to this case. Do you really believe that the conspirators did not consider the possibility of altering the Z-film? Edited July 10, 2004 by ville huoponen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 (edited) Having said that I need to emphasize that Miller´s findings do not prove the authenticity of the film. There are many more issues still to be resolved and many of the points in the rebuttal of the book TGZFH did not impress me. Bill Greer´s rapid head turn was however one of those good rebuttals they made and I believe this issue is now settled. Ville, Thanks for your interest in this film and photo alteration subject. I look forward to having someone to help think through the findings that Miller and others came up with for I have reviewed each and every aspect of the critique on Lancer and I didn't find a single flaw in it. If I missed something, then I would certainly want to know it because it would mean something was altered and that is big news! I agree that Miller's critique doesn't prove that the Zapruder film wasn't altered, but I believe it proves that the evidence that has been put forth to date that the Zapruder film was altered was nothing more than poor research applications used in testing the information within the images. Do you really believe that the conspirators did not consider the possibility of altering the Z-film? I believe it has been shown time and time again that no one could have possibly known what to alter on the Zapruder film because no one could be sure who all had filmed the assassination or that all those who did film JFK's murder had turned copies of their films in. I know Marie Muchmore walked out of the plaza with her film immediately after the assassination and it wasn't until the 25th of November that she sold it to UPI without the film even being developed. UPI then flew it to NY and had it shown on TV for the public to see. The Feds never found out Muchmore's film existed until after it was aired on television. Orville Nix was another example where he carried his film pout of the plaza, as well and didn't have it developed until the 30th of November. Orville made the mistake of turning in the camera original in my opinion, but he did keep a 1st generation copy in his control. So these are just of examples of what occurred which would have surely been detrimental for exposing any alterations being done to the Zapruder film. The bottom line is the people in power behind the conspiracy didn't need to alter the films and risk being caught. From the evidence I have seen - the idea was to take control of the body of evidence, claim to have reviewed and fill a report and then lock it away until everyone who could contradict any of it was now dead and buried. It was the work of Harold Weisberg in his legal battles to have the assassination records released that poked holes in the dam and eventually caused the flood gates to open. Edited July 10, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 11, 2004 Author Share Posted July 11, 2004 Having said that I need to emphasize that Miller´s findings do not prove the authenticity of the film. There are many more issues still to be resolved and many of the points in the rebuttal of the book TGZFH did not impress me. Bill Greer´s rapid head turn was however one of those good rebuttals they made and I believe this issue is now settled. Ville, Thanks for your interest in this film and photo alteration subject. I look forward to having someone to help think through the findings that Miller and others came up with for I have reviewed each and every aspect of the critique on Lancer and I didn't find a single flaw in it. dgh01: not a single flaw? Not even Miller can sell that to those on the Lancer forum, let alone anywhere else... oh-boy, what do we have here? [...] I believe it has been shown time and time again that no one could have possibly known what to alter on the Zapruder film because no one could be sure who all had filmed the assassination or that all those who did film JFK's murder had turned copies of their films in. I know Marie Muchmore walked out of the plaza with her film immediately after the assassination and it wasn't until the 25th of November that she sold it to UPI without the film even being developed. UPI then flew it to NY and had it shown on TV for the public to see. The Feds never found out Muchmore's film existed until after it was aired on television. Orville Nix was another example where he carried his film pout of the plaza, as well and didn't have it developed until the 30th of November. Orville made the mistake of turning in the camera original in my opinion, but he did keep a 1st generation copy in his control. So these are just of examples of what occurred which would have surely been detrimental for exposing any alterations being done to the Zapruder film. dgh01: I suspect competent scientific researchers will correct errors made by Dr. John Costella, Dr. David Mantik - David Lifton, etc ... Someone on the OTHER side of the alteration argument needs to provide PROOF of a clean *chain of evidence* summary regarding the alledged Z-film and 3 optical film prints of. Till then all I'm seeing and hearing is a bad remake of a GERALDO show -- lot's of OPINION, rumor, ennuendo... Muchmore? Eh, At the time TV stations did NOT air film in the 8mm format, it has to be bumped to 16mm. Who in New York Citydid that, and where is that film? Guess what? Any film in the 16mm format is a **prime** candidate for alteration. Did the TV station have a "air check tape recorded" that show's us the EXACT Muchmore film that was aired? What NYC - TV station aired the segment, how many times was the segment aired and over the course of how many day's did it air... Devil's in the details Mr. Peter's. Miller can't support the contention that Muchmore's film was aired on ANY TV station. When he or you provide the material above, you'll have my attention and other's till then... -------------- The bottom line is the people in power behind the conspiracy didn't need to alter the films and risk being caught. dgh01: bottom line is the people behind the conspiracy murdered a sitting President of the United States, they'd do ANYTHING to avoid capture and have avoided same for 40 years - they're very good at their game... --------------- From the evidence I have seen - the idea was to take control of the body of evidence, dgh01: what evidence have you seen, touched and evaluated...? David Healy claim to have reviewed and fill a report and then lock it away until everyone who could contradict any of it was now dead and buried. It was the work of Harold Weisberg in his legal battles to have the assassination records released that poked holes in the dam and eventually caused the flood gates to open. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 dgh01: I suspect competent scientific researchers will correct errors made by Dr. John Costella, Dr. David Mantik - David Lifton, etc ... Someone on the OTHER side of the alteration argument needs to provide PROOF of a clean *chain of evidence* summary regarding the alledged Z-film and 3 optical film prints of. I wonder if Mr. David Mantik ever noticed White's mistakes concerning where Jean Hill and Mary Moorman stood during the shooting? If he did, then there certainly isn't any record of it in TGZFH. I remember Miller posting on Lancer that he was asked in an email by Mr. Lifton how he knew Moorman wasn't in the street and Miller told him that Mary's camera lens is looking over the top of the cycle riders windscreens ... that it was impossible for the 54" camera height that White attributed to Moorman to see over the top of the taller 58" high windscreens of the cycles while standing in the street. Miller went on to point out to Mr. Lifton that the photo showing when Moorman was in the street can be seen on page 233 of Richard Trask book "The Pictures of the Pain". In that photo of Officer McBride riding down Elm Street we can see the people along the north side of Elm Street through the windscreen, whereas in Moorman #5 Polarod we see the Bill Newman well above the windscreen of Martin and Hargis. It appears that not only did Mr. Mantik, Mr. Costella, Mr. Lifton and Mr. Fetzer failed to recognize this crucial point, but all the other alteration believers, as well. Now what degree in science does it take to understand the error that all these men made? To this date - not one of these men has produced an art teacher who teaches perspective to their students that will say that the observation Miller made was in error. For me, the bigger question isn't how Miller picked up on this all important point, but how were these well educated men able to miss it? I personally think that the only way to explain it is that these individuals were in an alteration mindset before they ever started and that while looking for something hard to spot so to show photo and film alteration, they missed the easy things to spot. Muchmore? Eh, At the time TV stations did NOT air film in the 8mm format, it has to be bumped to 16mm. Who in New York Citydid that, and where is that film? Guess what? Any film in the 16mm format is a **prime** candidate for alteration. Did the TV station have a "air check tape recorded" that show's us the EXACT Muchmore film that was aired? What NYC - TV station aired the segment, how many times was the segment aired and over the course of how many day's did it air... This subject was dealt with in-depth on Lancer and I am sure I seen your name on some of the replies in those threads, so you surely cannot be in the dark on this subject. I'm not going to go back and do your homework for you, but I will cite from memory as to how the information was discovered and how you can check on its accuracy if you really want to. Richard Trask wrote in his book "The Pictures of the Pain" about Muchmore's film in a chapter called "The Justin McCarty Women". Trask details the sale of the Muchmore film in that chapter. Then one of the researchers at Lancer contacted Gary Mack to see what more could be learned about what happened next with Muchmmore's film. Mack cited a TV station where the film was aired and a newspaper article that was printed the following day talking about the airing of Muchmore's film the night before. All this should be a matter of record and it was posted on Lancer no less than a year ago and possibly as long as two years ago. I would think that has been plenty of time for anyone to have contacted Gary Mack to validated the specifics and then followed up by searching their local libraries for the newspaper article that mentioned the airing of the Muchmore film. As I recall - the dates to look for have to be around the 25th to the 27th of Novemeber 63'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Here is ome follow up information on Muchmore's film and its trip to New York that I was made available by questioning Gary Mack. Gary said - I reported this information several YEARS ago. No one has refuted it, for no one can. The film was bumped to 16mm in New York City at any of several labs that do that work overnight. I visited one many years ago. The station was the former WNEW, which is now the FOX station . The contents of the film, scene by scene, event by event, were reported in the New York City afternoon newspapers referring to that day's broadcast, which was 11/26/63. The film still exists (in private hands) and is identical to the version that has been seen since then. Likewise, the Nix film is well documented, especially in regard to the Saturday, 11/30 football game. The film wasn't taken out of the camera until late that night and was processed the next day. Jack White even has a copy of the very newspaper that reports the score of that Saturday night game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 (edited) Here is an example of a faulty approach that was taken by the alteration crowd to see if Moorman's photo had been altered. Notice how the windows in the cropped overlay do not match. To better see this - place your mouse arrow on the right hand side of the Moorman window and watch the overlay run. You will see that alterationist photographers window shifts to one side, thus he was not even standing at the right angle to the pedestal when he took his test photo. Had the camera of been exactly where Moorman was standing, then there should be no shifting seen between the cropped version of his photo and Moorman's photo. You will also see the vertical walls between the photographer's photo and Moorman's Poaroid go back and forth like a set of windshield wipers in partial motion. There are two possible reasons for this. One is that Moorman had her camera tilted lightly downward and looking at the President and the alterationist photographer had his camera angled upward. Once a camera lens falls below the horizontal plane it will cause vertical lines to lean in one direction. The more below the plane the camera angle is - the more the vertical lines will lean. When a camera leans is tilted upward above the horizontal plane - the vertical lines will lean the other way. The other possible cause for what were are seeing may be that the photographer didn't align his cropped overlay properly. Regardless of how the mistake was made, it is quite noticeable when seen in motion. (Click on the image to start in motion) Edited July 13, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 13, 2004 Author Share Posted July 13, 2004 Here is ome follow up information on Muchmore's film and its trip to New York that I was made available by questioning Gary Mack. Gary said -I reported this information several YEARS ago. No one has refuted it, for no one can. The film was bumped to 16mm in New York City at any of several labs that do that work overnight. I visited one many years ago. The station was the former WNEW, which is now the FOX station . The contents of the film, scene by scene, event by event, were reported in the New York City afternoon newspapers referring to that day's broadcast, which was 11/26/63. The film still exists (in private hands) and is identical to the version that has been seen since then. dgh01: as I told Gary in a email early yesterday: do a side by side comparison of the camera original - with the 16mm bumped version that "aired" add what was previewed last year -- and let us mere mortals judge for ourselves - you has enough gofer's to assign the task! Your making an excellent parrot Mr. Peter's, have YOU done any research lately? You see Mr. Peter's we have "only" someones word as to what aired in Nov '63. We now know the Muchmore 8mm film was bumped to 16 mm film immediately in NYC - a while ago a debate raged on other forum's 'whether the 8mm Z-film could of been bumped to 16mm'. May be inconsequential to YOU, to other's that disagree with your non- alteration "assumptions", just another link in the chain... ---------------- Likewise, the Nix film is well documented, especially in regard to the Saturday, 11/30 football game. The film wasn't taken out of the camera until late that night and was processed the next day. Jack White even has a copy of the very newspaper that reports the score of that Saturday night game. dgh01: oh dear - now, Jack White is convienent, roflmao!... David Healy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 13, 2004 Author Share Posted July 13, 2004 Here is an example of a faulty approach that was taken by the alteration crowd to see if Moorman's photo had been altered. Notice how the windows in the cropped overlay do not match. To better see this - place your mouse arrow on the right hand side of the Moorman window and watch the overlay run. You will see that alterationist photographers window shifts to one side, thus he was not even standing at the right angle to the pedestal when he took his test photo. Had the camera of been exactly where Moorman was standing, then there should be no shifting seen between the cropped version of his photo and Moorman's photo. You will also see the vertical walls between the photographer's photo and Moorman's Poaroid go back and forth like a set of windshield wipers in partial motion. There are two possible reasons for this. One is that Moorman had her camera tilted lightly downward and looking at the President and the alterationist photographer had his camera angled upward. Once a camera lens falls below the horizontal plane it will cause vertical lines to lean in one direction. The more below the plane the camera angle is - the more the vertical lines will lean. When a camera leans is tilted upward above the horizontal plane - the vertical lines will lean the other way. The other possible cause for what were are seeing may be that the photographer didn't align his cropped overlay properly. Regardless of how the mistake was made, it is quite noticeable when seen in motion. (Click on the image to start in motion)dgh01: WOW, what photographic qualifications do you have that would make me/others take you seriously? Are you a specialist in camera optics? I suspect NOT. Are you claiming this work as yours Mr. Peter's? One that you created, might you be crediting other's for this work? If so, WHO? To insure credibility, might be nice to know. Btw, Mr. Peter's you discussing a STILL photo, the Moorman5 photo to be exact. Might want to get the readers [that do NOT have TGZFH] up to speed with what your countering here - and WHY your countering least you can do! -------------------- <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 13, 2004 Author Share Posted July 13, 2004 dgh01: I suspect competent scientific researchers will correct errors made by Dr. John Costella, Dr. David Mantik - David Lifton, etc ... Someone on the OTHER side of the alteration argument needs to provide PROOF of a clean *chain of evidence* summary regarding the alledged Z-film and 3 optical film prints of. I wonder if Mr. David Mantik ever noticed White's mistakes concerning where Jean Hill and Mary Moorman stood during the shooting? If he did, then there certainly isn't any record of it in TGZFH. I remember Miller posting on Lancer that he was asked in an email by Mr. Lifton how he knew Moorman wasn't in the street and Miller told him that Mary's camera lens is looking over the top of the cycle riders windscreens ... dgh02: well Mr. Peters, it Dr. David Mantik M.D. by the way he also has a Ph.D. in Physics, he also has has an email address -- ASK him? Better yet e-mail Dr. Cyril Wecht, their pretty good friends that it was impossible for the 54" camera height that White attributed to Moorman to see over the top of the taller 58" high windscreens of the cycles while standing in the street. Miller went on to point out to Mr. Lifton that the photo showing when Moorman was in the street can be seen on page 233 of Richard Trask book "The Pictures of the Pain". In that photo of Officer McBride riding down Elm Street we can see the people along the north side of Elm Street through the windscreen, whereas in Moorman #5 Polarod we see the Bill Newman well above the windscreen of Martin and Hargis. It appears that not only did Mr. Mantik, Mr. Costella, Mr. Lifton and Mr. Fetzer failed to recognize this crucial point, but all the other alteration believers, as well. dgh02: Mr., Mr., Mr...... these folks Mr. peter's or who ever you are are DOCTORS, PhD's and/or MD's, too much fog in Scotland, perhaps..... -------------- Now what degree in science does it take to understand the error that all these men made? To this date - not one of these men has produced an art teacher who teaches perspective to their students that will say that the observation Miller made was in error. For me, the bigger question isn't how Miller picked up on this all important point, but how were these well educated men able to miss it? I personally think that the only way to explain it is that these individuals were in an alteration mindset before they ever started and that while looking for something hard to spot so to show photo and film alteration, they missed the easy things to spot. dgh02: your sounding suspiciously like someone I've had dealings with in the past, Mr. whomever? Muchmore? Eh, At the time TV stations did NOT air film in the 8mm format, it has to be bumped to 16mm. Who in New York Citydid that, and where is that film? Guess what? Any film in the 16mm format is a **prime** candidate for alteration. Did the TV station have a "air check tape recorded" that show's us the EXACT Muchmore film that was aired? What NYC - TV station aired the segment, how many times was the segment aired and over the course of how many day's did it air... This subject was dealt with in-depth on Lancer and I am sure I seen your name on some of the replies in those threads, so you surely cannot be in the dark on this subject. I'm not going to go back and do your homework for you, but I will cite from memory as to how the information was discovered and how you can check on its accuracy if you really want to. dgh02: don't bother - I own the books, btw -- I don't do Lancer, Miller is quite comfortable living behind Debra's skirt. He has the same problem you do -- nothing original, therefore a provocateur. ---------------- Richard Trask wrote in his book "The Pictures of the Pain" about Muchmore's film in a chapter called "The Justin McCarty Women". Trask details the sale of the Muchmore film in that chapter. Then one of the researchers at Lancer contacted Gary Mack to see what more could be learned about what happened next with Muchmmore's film. Mack cited a TV station where the film was aired and a newspaper article that was printed the following day talking about the airing of Muchmore's film the night before. All this should be a matter of record and it was posted on Lancer no less than a year ago and possibly as long as two years ago. I would think that has been plenty of time for anyone to have contacted Gary Mack to validated the specifics and then followed up by searching their local libraries for the newspaper article that mentioned the airing of the Muchmore film. As I recall - the dates to look for have to be around the 25th to the 27th of Novemeber 63'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 dgh01: WOW, what photographic qualifications do you have that would make me/others take you seriously? Are you a specialist in camera optics? I suspect NOT. Are you claiming this work as yours Mr. Peter's? One that you created, might you be crediting other's for this work? If so, WHO? To insure credibility, might be nice to know. Btw, Mr. Peter's you discussing a STILL photo, the Moorman5 photo to be exact. Might want to get the readers [that do NOT have TGZFH] up to speed with what your countering here - and WHY your countering least you can do! Mr. Healy - I am taking the evidence presented by Mr. White and testing it by using the same data that he presented. Nowhere did Mr. White say to make allowances for optics and one does not need to be a specialist to follow what he had wrote. Mr. White overlaid his photo onto Moorman's Polaroid and said that by using his overlay we can see that the windows should be seen sticking out behind Abraham Zapruder. I merely took his Moorman cropping and slid it over onto the Moorman cropping Mr. White had placed his photo over. If Mr. White's cropping was accurately done, then when overlaid onto Moorman's photograph by way of his own example, then there should not be any shifting taking place. Now if you feel there is lesson in optics you would like to address that Mr. White didn't account for, I am sure he'd be happy to hear about it. I am sure that the entire forum wants to hear about it. You see, that's the beauty of all this. One can use Mr. White's own work to show his mistakes and all the excuse making on your part isn't going to divert attention away from it. In fact, your grandstanding only draws attention to the errors being referenced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 I suspect competent scientific researchers will correct errors made by Dr. John Costella, Dr. David Mantik - David Lifton, etc ... Someone on the OTHER side of the alteration argument needs to provide PROOF of a clean *chain of evidence* summary regarding the alledged Z-film and 3 optical film prints of. Oh but Mr. Healy, does it take a scientist to know the standing height for a Dallas police motorcycle at its highest point is taller than Moorman's alloted camera lens height - of course not! Does it then take a scientist to see that her camera is looking over the top of a Dallas police motorcyle - of course not! Does it take a scientist to find out how long after the assassination did James Altgens number 6 photograph went out on the news wire - of course not! Does it take a scientist to see Jean Hill and Mary Moorman's shadows coming from the south pasture in Altgens photograph - of course not! Just from memory I can tell you about two of the optical prints you speak of. One was made by Robert Groden and the other was a copy of Groden's copy which was given to Lifton. Now see, had you of made a simple call to Gary Mack or Robert Groden, then you could have known these things. I am certain that if you contact either of these men that you can also find out what you need to know about the other two prints in question. dgh02: well Mr. Peters, it Dr. David Mantik M.D. by the way he also has a Ph.D. in Physics, he also has has an email address -- ASK him? Better yet e-mail Dr. Cyril Wecht, their pretty good friends But yet he couldn't see the mistakes in the Moorman in the street claim - interesting. dgh02: Mr., Mr., Mr...... these folks Mr. peter's or who ever you are are DOCTORS, PhD's and/or MD's, too much fog in Scotland, perhaps..... They are also the same PhD's who think rain sensors are listening devices or write in TGZFH about this large window of time that Moorman's number five Polaroid could have been altered, while not checking with anyone first to know that her Polaroid was shown on National TV (NBC) within 3 hours of the assassination. They are the same MD's who missed the points that so many others noted about Moorman's photograph. If I get a cold, then I will not hesitate to consult Dr. Mantik, but if I want to duplicate a photographers filming location, I'll pass on using him to find it. Mantik, Fetzer and White's recreation overlay is presented below. I'll let the scientist and fellow researchers judge their accuracy by clicking on the clip and letting it run. dgh02: don't bother - I own the books, btw -- I don't do Lancer, Miller is quite comfortable living behind Debra's skirt. He has the same problem you do -- nothing original, therefore a provocateur. You seem to do the Education Forum and have avoided every opportunity to address Miller's critique when examples of it has been presented to you. Now I recall reading your name on several of the threads on Lancer that were part of the critique concerning allegations of photo and film alteration, but I don't recall you rebutting anything that would cause Miller to have to hide behind any skirts. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that I can copy and paste every one of your replies on the Lancer critique threads to a single post here and I do not believe anyone can find a single factual point of rebuttal that you offered. I'd be willing to bet that your answers on Lancer will mirror your answers on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 (edited) dgh02: don't bother - I own the books, btw -- I don't do Lancer, Miller is quite comfortable living behind Debra's skirt. He has the same problem you do -- nothing original, therefore a provocateur. I would like to put something to rest so we can move on. It seems that to rather address the questions and points that are being raised in these threads concerning photo and film alteration claims, Mr. White and Mr. Healy have opted to not deal with the specific issues and tell the forum that they are being attacked by "provocateurs". I thought it would be interesting to get the eact definition of the word they like to throw around and here it is - Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural agents provocateurs /'ä-"zhän-prO-"vä-k&-'t&r, 'A-j&n(t)s-prO-/ Etymology: French, literally, provoking agent Date: 1877 : one employed to associate with suspected persons and by pretending sympathy with their aims to incite them to some incriminating action Let me make one thing clear - I do not and have not shown sympathy for those people who make claims of film and photo alteration and then evade specific oberservations and points detailing their mistakes. It hardly seems right that they welcome questions and observations to only then call anyone who points out their mistakes a provocateur. It's almost as if they have done the provoking by by taking the position ... I WILL ANSWER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS SO LONG AS IT DOESN'T EXPOSE ANY MISTAKES I MADE IN MY ALTERATION CLAIMS. If this method of forum participation is going to be their approach, then why bother making the offer in the first place. Would it then be appropriate that those who ask the appropriate questions and make the points needed to test these claims of photo and film alteration to call those who don't follow through with their original offer - Welshers? Main Entry: welsh Pronunciation: 'welsh, 'welch Function: intransitive verb Etymology: probably from Welsh, adjective Date: 1905 1 : to avoid payment — used with on <welshed on his debts> 2 : to break one's word : RENEGE <welshed on their promises> - welsh·er noun So please, in the future just answer the questions and stop evading the issues being raised and we'll all get through this together. Here is a little inspiration to help you do this ... Let justice be done though the Heavens fall. Edited July 16, 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