Len Colby

David G. Healy Feb 21 2006, 11:52 PM 'Len Colby' wrote: Craig (with all due respect) and David this whole "whose dick is bigger that whose I'm a better photographer than you" stick got old a long time ago. But Healy it's time for you to put up or shut up post some links to or examples of your work if you are going to claim expertise Seeing you're in the email loop -- I'll respond! First, G R O W U P ! This from a 60 year-old who acts like a 6 year old Film post production and compositing obviously. You really couldn't figure that out all by yourself? The "due respect" was directed at Craig only and was sincere. He doesn't claim to be an authority on film compositing but posted samples of his work. You on the other hand claim such expertise but make excuses when asked to show your work. Yeah read you bio and read your chapter in Hoax. As I said elsewhere if the issue was video editing I wouldn't doubt you expertise. Your bio hints at some film experience but is vague in that respect. Show us some reason to believe you know anything about compositing FILM other than what you're read or from doing similar work with video or computers. Craig's credentials aren't the issue (except for the 2 of you). I don't care which one of you is more talented or make more money and I doubt anyone else does either. That was my whole point I'm sure you're right but the issue is what was possible in 1963, we have yet to see any evidence that you can speak authoritatively on that. The only evidence you cited in Hoax and on this forum was claiming that Ray Fielding's book and unspecified copies of SMPE/SMPTE journals backed you up without quoting a single word or citing a specific page, chapter or article. But Fielding and Rollie Zavada, the guy who invented the film Zapruder used, say you are wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they both longtime members and former board members of SMPTE? If those journal articles back your theory shouldn't they know about it? As long as you claim to be an authority it is. When have I EVER bashed your work? I haven't even seen it. I don't know if you have any FILM compositing experience but you are an ace dissembler and excuse maker. The relevance of these requests has been explained to you over and over again. I can't believe that you really don't get it. The question now is why some much secrecy? If you have any experience why the reluctance to tell us about it? You aren't shy to brag about your video work. Funny how you keep mentioning those mags but never get around to citing a specific article. See above. No one is saying that optical printing didn't exist back then and you know that, so stop throwing around that straw man. The other one you like to use and know is false is to try to frame the alteration debate as a LN v. conspiracist issue. Try being intellectually honest. Speaking of which did or didn't Zavada examine the original Z-film? And now that we're on the subject I waiting for you to retract calling me a xxxx since you said, http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6096&view=findpost&p=54805 Obviously I did so without even trying. I just wanted to get Craig and you to stop acting like kids and for you to show evidence of your CLAIMED expertise.

Craig (with all due respect) and David this whole "whose dick is bigger that whose I'm a better photographer than you" stick got old a long time ago. But Healy it's time for you to put up or shut up post some links to or examples of your work if you are going to claim expertise

See what I mean by "9/11 deniers"? You didn't read Mineta's testimony, did you. Just laugh it off about Cheney. But give those Holocaust deniers hell! Ron – I must say that I find your comparison of people who don't believe the unsubstantiated theories that 9/11 was "an inside job" to Holocaust deniers offensive. You are in effect comparing us to neo-Nazis and other rightwing crackpots. "9/11 deniers" as you call us come from a wide variety of ideological backgrounds, including many people on the left (Chip Bertlett, Edward Said, Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky among others) and are driven by a commitment to the truth. Many people who reject the Warren Report also reject 9/11 "conspiracy theories" Truth be told Holocaust denial has a lot in common with "inside job" theories, both present revisionist versions of history with zero backing from any qualified experts. The collapse of the Twin Towers was the subject of two major reports and numerous independent scientific papers all of which are in basic agreement. Most of these papers were written by American scientists but some were written by experts from Europe, Oceania and Asia*. Dozens if not hundreds of scientists have contributed to these reports and thousand more have reviewed them. The "9/11 truth movement" on the other hand has yet to find a single qualified expert, out of the millions worldwide**, to back it's theories or publish a single peer reviewed paper. 9/11 Controlled demo theories like Holocaust denial, creation science and Apollo hoax theories has back from PhD's, but they all got their degrees in unrelated fields Both movements are ideologically driven most people who believe the Bush administration carried out 9/11 are from the extreme left or extreme right or are confirmed CTists. There is indeed a significant over lap between Holocaust deniers and 9/11 "inside job" believers. While probably only a minority of "inside job" believers are Holocaust deniers, as far as I can tell all Holocaust deniers support the "inside job" theory. In addition a large part of the "9/11 Truth Movement" (such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth) show little qualms about working together with Holocaust deniers like Christopher Bollyn, Eric Hufschmidt and Jeff Rense. Did the Bush administration some how cause 9/11 to happen or know what was coming and purposely fail to act? These theories are plausible but there is little credible evidence backing them. The controlled demolition of the WTC theories are bunk on the same level as creationism, "Apollo hoax" theories, chemtrails and yes Holocaust denial. This thread is going off track, I won't discuss 9/11 or the RFK assassination here anymore. There are appropriate sub-forums and threads for these subjects. Len PS - Ron are Steve Turner, Andy Walker and I really worse than Willis Carto and David Irving? PPS -Ron put the "smoking gun" quote from Minetta in a post in a 9/11 thread *There is even one from a University in Beijing and others written by engineers with Arab or Muslim sounding names. http://911myths.com/html/fire_temperature.html **By qualified experts I mean civil engineers (esp. structural or construction), licensed architects, fire engineers, demolitions experts, failure analysis specialists and construction contractors. There are 200,000 civil engineers and architects in the US alone.

Nor does it seem that US policy changed so much after LBJ became president. Overview President Lyndon B. Johnson sought to continue his predecessor John F. Kennedy's policy of pursuing good relations with Gamal Abdul Nasser's Egypt, then called the United Arab Republic (UAR), while maintaining good relations with Israel. Keeping the Arab-Israeli dispute "in the icebox" was central to this approach. Mounting tensions in the area, fueled by terrorist attacks on Israel and the flow of Soviet arms to the UAR, undermined this policy. The administration reluctantly agreed to provide increasingly sophisticated arms to Israel and Jordan. U.S. relations with the UAR cooled, as UAR intervention in Yemen and Nasser's vocal criticism of U.S. policies annoyed Johnson and stirred Congressional opposition to U.S. economic aid. Still, the administration tried to take an even-handed approach to the Arab-Israeli dispute, to prevent a buildup of advanced weapons in the area, and to prevent the increasingly frequent incidents on Israel's borders from flaring into armed conflict. The volume concludes on the brink of the crisis that preceded the Six-Day War. The Question of Arms for Israel and Jordan As the year 1964 began, Israel launched an intensive effort to obtain modern U.S. tanks to counterbalance Soviet-equipped UAR forces. The request ran counter to established U.S. policy to avoid becoming a major arms supplier to either side in the Arab-Israeli dispute. Although the Kennedy administration had diverged from the policy with its 1962 sale of Hawk missiles to Israel, Johnson administration officials were reluctant to depart further from it. While there was much sympathy for Israel's request within the administration, as well as awareness of the domestic political benefits of providing the tanks in an election year, there was also concern over the likely Arab reaction and the impact of a sale on U.S. interests in the Near East and influence in the Arab world. (3, 7, 10, 13, 28, 29, 42) After an interdepartmental review, the National Security Council Standing Group agreed that the anticipated Arab reaction precluded a direct U.S. tank sale to Israel, but that the United States should assist Israel in obtaining British, French, or German tanks. White House aide Myer Feldman was dispatched to Tel Aviv to tell the Israelis that the United States would not sell tanks directly but would help them obtain tanks from Europe. (47, 48, 54-57) When Israel's Prime Minister Levi Eshkol visited Washington in June 1964, Johnson told him the United States would help Israel in every way possible to obtain British and German tanks at an affordable price. (64, 65) Subsequently, a complicated arrangement was worked out in which Israel would purchase U.S. tanks from Germany, with modernization kits to be supplied by the United States, supplemented by British tanks. The German tank deal was contingent on secrecy. (98) http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/state/frusmide.html Does any the date the US delivered the Hawk missiles to Israel?

Another review of the book A friend of Israel — with reservations JOHN F. KENNEDY AND ISRAEL by Herbert M. Druks. Praeger, 2005, 214 pages, $64 by Jack Fischel Special to NJ Jewish News John F. Kennedy’s presidency disproves the adage that the apple does not fall far from the tree. Kennedy’s father, Joseph P. Kennedy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ambassador to Great Britain, sought to appease Hitler, displayed hostility toward Jews, and, following Roosevelt’s death, wrote in his diary that “Truman…will kick out all these incompetents and Jews.” Kennedy pere’s eldest son, Joe Kennedy Jr., who was being groomed to some day become president before meeting his death as a volunteer Navy flier during World War II, wrote that the “[German] dislike of Jews was well founded,” and he accepted the Nazi claim that “the Jews were at the head of all big business, law, etc.” According to Herbert Druks, “young Joe seemed undisturbed by the German atrocities against the Jews.” Yet, his brother, John, was the first president to sell Israel a defense system and commence a “special relationship” with the Jewish state, thus altering the “even-handed” policies of his predecessors, Eisenhower and Truman. Druks, who teaches history at Brooklyn College, is the author of several scholarly books on American policy toward Israel. In this important study, he contends that the present close relationship between Israel and the United States owes a great deal to Kennedy’s administration. That special relationship wasn’t always there. Although Truman was the first to recognize the State of Israel, his administration would not sell the country arms, although the Soviet Union was supplying Egypt with sophisticated weapons. The Eisenhower administration was even colder toward Israel, insisting that by selling arms to the Jewish state it would provide strong support and thus move the Arabs into the Soviet camp. During the 1956 Suez crisis, Eisenhower threatened Israel with sanctions and worse if it did not pull back from Sinai. When Kennedy became president, he was determined to separate his administration from the policies of his predecessor. As Druks writes, “Israel represented hope and progress to [Kennedy], not just for Jews, but for all mankind.” The president believed that it would be easier to live with an Israel that was secure than an Israel that might undertake unpredictable adventures like the Suez conflict. He also calculated that Israel might become an effective deterrent against Soviet ambitions in the Middle East. Kennedy, however, had to deal with a State Department that viewed Israel as a liability in regard to America’s cultivation of the Arabs and their oil, let alone as a countering agent to Soviet influence in the Middle East. Dean Rusk, secretary of state under Kennedy, for example, blamed Israel for all the difficulties that the United States faced in the Arab world. During the Kennedy presidency, the State Department opposed the efforts of Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his successor, Levi Eshkol, to attain a formal alliance between their country and the United States. Kennedy agreed with the State Department, fearing that such an agreement would move the Arab states closer to the Soviet Union. What the president was willing to do, however, was assure Israel that should the Jewish state come under attack, the United States would come to its assistance. So, although refusing to form the Israeli-American dual alliance, Kennedy believed America could uphold its friendship and commitments both to Israel and the Arabs. Israel was unhappy with Kennedy’s response and, lacking a formal alliance with the United States, Ben-Gurion embarked on a nuclear program that brought the Israeli premier into conflict with Kennedy. Although Israel insisted that its nuclear program was not designed to produce nuclear weapons, Kennedy nevertheless insisted on inspections at the Dimona nuclear facility, as well as passing on its findings to the Egyptians so as to assure them that Israel was not engaged in producing such weapons. Druks details this controversy, which strained the relationship between the United States and Israel and led to a compromise whereby Kennedy accepted Israel’s promise to allow U.S. scientists to visit Dimona but not pass on the information to Egypt. When it became apparent, however, that the Soviet Union was enabling Egypt to test rockets, Kennedy responded by providing Israel with a Hawk defensive missile system. Subsequently, Israeli leaders requested and received ground-to-air missiles, tanks, and naval craft to counter the weapons supplied to the Arabs by the Russians. The sale of the Hawks marked a major change in American policy from the Truman-Eisenhower position — albeit one-sided, since the Soviet Union was supplying weapons to the Arabs — of withholding arms sales to Israel lest it encourage an arms race in the Middle East. Although the sale of the Hawks marked a turning point in America’s support of Israel, Druks concludes that Kennedy’s most important contribution to moving Israel closer to the United States was his repeated promise that he would not tolerate any harm to the Jewish state. He gave assurances that Israel was as important to the United States as Great Britain. But he would go no further; Israel would not be included in any NATO-type alliance. In short, although Kennedy believed strongly in America’s moral commitment to Israeli security and took steps to strengthen the Jewish state’s ability to resist aggression, he continued the State Department policy of placating Arab ambitions, despite the Soviet Union’s continued efforts to encourage the Arabs to plant the next “round” against Israel. Jack Fischel is emeritus professor of history at Millersville University in Pennsylvania. http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:x7CMh.../ltkennedy.html

Pat, have you ever dropped acid? From what I've read attempts to use it as a "mind control" drug or truth serum utterly failed and my own "experimentation" leads me to believe that such an application isn't feasible. Nor have I heard about any credible reports that making someone in to a "Manchurian Candidate" is possible.

Indeed Israel had gotten by without arms sales from the US up to that point because thay had found other countries to arm them. The Dimona project counted on help from Britain, Norway and France. If Kennedy had cut off arms sales there is no reason to believe that Israel couldn't have gotten weapons froms it's previous suppliers esp. those nations that were willing to help it develop atomic weapons. I assume the US knew about the help was getting from Europe, is there any sign Kennedy put pressure on them to stop? If not how serious were his efforts to prevent Israel from developing such weapons? Is there anything in Kennedy's White House tapes or biographies or memoirs etc of those who served in his administration that supports or contradicts Piper's thesis?

The worst joke I can think of now is Michael Collins Piper.

So you admit to being intellectually dishonest when you were in high school, why should we believe you now? This shows that you are inclined to come to absurd conclusions, based on the evidence at hand. You just don’t get it, someone doesn’t have to be Jewish, pro-Israel, anti-Arab or anti-Muslim to be disgusted by an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier. You said that members of this forum lied about you; it’s time for you to offer some evidence or retract that claim. If not your lack of honor and propensity to make false charges will be evident to all.

if your a blood spatter expert, please step up, if NOT sit down, Thanks You a blood splatter expert now too? Or just playing guard dog for aussieboy? And since you made the silly statement about the "resolution" of kodachrome 25, its fair to ask you exactly what you know about the resolution of the3 oentire imaging system Zapruder used....which appears to be nothing. Of course the entire exhance in your post was a simple strawman built to give yourself the air of authority...you should be ashamed. Of course the school teacher from Australia didn't examine the original Z-film, or if I am not mistaken, any film version and only DVD copies. What was the highest resolution copy he examined? Not that it's really relevant, Shelly and common sense show him to be in error. I feel sorry for his students, if he couldn't figure out that the bullet would have accelerated the blood splatter, PhD and all he hardly seems qualified to teach school children let alone try to analyze the Z-film.

Healy plays games to obfuscate the truth. Did Groden handle the original, he says he did, does Dave have any evidence to the contrary? . Did Zavada examine the original Z-film from the National Archives? That isn't in dispute, Healy knows he did. Yet he said “To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!“. When the truth isn't on his side he blows smoke and tries to fool people. Dave - Lying doesn’t become you nor the forum!!!!

I found this on another forum. It shows that the whole controlled demo theory is ridiqulous. Interestingly enough even though the forum was dominated by CD proponents no one made a substative reply except to suggest the explosives were triggered wirelessly

Bill, Dave IS an expert - in VIDEO and COMPUTER post-production, and heck they're just like film LOL. His ignoring of them is dishonest because he knows that Zavada and Groden and others closely examined the original and says that no one did. The forum's rules don't allow me to say what it is when a person says something that they know is untrue. If he can come up with a rational explaination I will offer a retraction. He accused me of lying in the "blood mistake" thread and I showed that to be incorrect. I'm still waiting for his retraction. Len PS - Can someone "quote" this message so that the childish Mr. Healy will see it. Amazing he acts likes a 5 year old.

He also inadvertantly admitted that none of the contributors to TGZFH (who are all members of this forum i.e. 'board') are qualified photo experts. Maybe he is loosing it he forgot '"saying" what he wrote below 6 days later. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=54805 Len

Actually the CD (controlled demo) crowd has begun addressing this, talking about 'increased' maintenance activities before 9-11. They think the Con Ed and cable guys and some construction workers really were there to plant the explosives. Do you think Con Edison, Manhattan Cable, the Mob (who IIRC still run NYC construction) and the Port Authority (who authorized the work) were in on it? Another problem with their theory is that in CD explosives aren't just placed anywhere. The are placed in very specific locations, normally in holes cut into thick steel beams. Cutting these holes makes tremendous amounts of noise which would not have gone unnoticed. Smaller beams are cut and many bolts are unbolted prior to demolition. This of course leaves the buildings unstable and this too would have been noticed. Another question is how would the charges have been detonated? The traditional method would have been to run wires from the detonator(s) to the explosives. This of course would have been impossible in the WTC. Some have suggested that radio detonators were used, but since lower Manhattan is sea of radio traffic and most of the cities most powerful radio/TV antennas were on the roof of one of the towers, the buildings must have been pretty well shielded. I also wonder how explosives could have taken out the perimeter columns. Any cutting of them to place explosives inside or explosives planted outside would have been noticed. Also no one had access to them the windows were sealed. The windows were washed with small machines. The more I look at the CD story the less sense it makes

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=54805 ]Jack -Even Healy says you aren't an expert LOL Len

I thought about it but don't think he'd send ME a copy esp. since postage to Brazil is expensive. I'm not even comfortable giving him my address. If he was willing to send me a copy I'd probably get a PO Box. I'm surprised you found his book (up to ch. 5) less than convincing, I thought you'd made up your mind already. As I already said I didn't find those 2 chapters very pursuesive. I was also surprised that more people hadn't downloaded the chapters Len

Len, Well I read all his posts and those of his correspondents and I don't agree that he did all those things. His book hasn't been dismissed by everyone and there appears to be a significant minority, including Mark Lane, who think he might be on to something. It's in its sixth edition, so obviously some people want to read it. Mark I suggest you re-read both threads esp.the other one I don't think many serious JFK scholars take him seriously. As for Mark Lane he seems to have gone over the deeped a long time ago. There's nothing wrong with a Jew being anti-Israel but you gotta wonder when one becomesone of the top cheerleaders for America's leading purveyor of anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and pro-Hilter litrature you have to wonder about self-loathing. Len

Funny Dave you didn't question whether Costella had any experience studing blood splatter on videotape or DVD. As for copies being available for evaluation you DO make good points, but they hurt rather than help your case. Costella based his conclusions upon evidence whose quality you are calling into question. Therefore any conclusion he drew is highly suspect esp. considering his complete ignorance of the subject and inability to use common sense. Thanks for the help Dave you brought up a point which shows that Costella's "blood mistake" analysis is inconclusive at best.LOL Len Edit typo fixed

I don't know if Dave is playing with words here or flat out lying both Zavavda and Feilding (see FULL quote) and apperently Oliver Stone and others have said it would not have been possible. Cute how dave used only half of Feilding's quote. Again is Dave playing with words or BSing, Groden and Zavada handled the original. Zavada closely examined looking for signs of alteration and declared the was an "in-camera" original shot with the type camera Zapruder had and showed none of the tell tale signs of compositing. Also IIRC the film was available to researchers for years and none of them found any signs of alteration. If there was something to hide why make the film available? Nothing there about a motocade with moving people in it being superimposed on a backgroound with moving people in it and people's arms and legs being made to move differently than they had in real life. Nor is there anything about the alteration being able to escape detection. Can someone please quote this message so that the childish 60 year old Mr. Healy will see it!!!

Perhaps they agreed with me that it would take the thread too far off topic or perhaps they didn't think they were knowledge enough to comment. Again I think you misunderstood what pissed everyone off. Instead of defending his thesis he insulted the forum as a whole, kept on throwing in new Jewish conspiracies and repeatedly accused other members of lying or as I said before he "shat on the forum". Start the new thread and I'm sure you will get people to comment. Remember Piper wasn't a victim, he intentionally antagonized people and left of his own volition. Len

No fork jabs Terry, just a thumbs up!!

I swear when ever I read one of Healy's posts I think about Romper Room. My six-year old daughter used to pull that (finger's in ears) nanana I can't here you stunt to but stopped about a year ago. I used to call people "tard" but that was back in junior high school. Hard to believe this guy is past 60, how pathetic. I sent the text of his message above to Feilding but he has NO interest in debating Healy nor does he want the likes of Healy to have his e-mail address. If John Simkin or Andy are willing I could forward all the e-mails I've exchanged with Mr. Fielding to one of them. They could then examine the headers and give their opinion as to whether the messages are authentic. Healy should have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the message since he is in contact with Zavada who is a friend of Fielding. He could easily verify this matter. My e-mail exchange with Fielding went as follows.

If blowing smoke was an Olympic sport Fetzer would have a lock on the gold medal. His high school teacher buddy writes and article in which he proclaims that Kennedy’s blood shouldn’t have dissipated at a rate any faster than free fall speed, as if it being blown out by a 1000 - 2000 ft/sec bullet wouldn’t accelerate it!! Then when someone highly qualified points out his obvious blunder and provides data to back it up, Fetzer rather than countering her argument, which he can’t, starts spewing irrelevant BS like the supposed limo “stop” and even drudges up his Moorman LOS argument with Tink. As for the LOS I suggested he or his publisher pop for a surveyor to settle the question once and for all, you’d think if he was so confident of the results he would have taken me up on it. The whole bit about witnesses saying the limo stopped has been pretty well debunked on other threads. As Duke Lane showed of the 59 witnesses cited by Fetzer IIRC only 23 or so actually said the LIMO stopped and as Al (IIRC) pointed out many of them were far from the limo at the time. Rather than go off topic I suggest that Fetzer try to rebut this in the appropriate threads. Most of the other “proofs” he talks about have already be refuted but that is irrelevant because none of them relate to issue of blood splatter following frame 313 neither Costela’s sloppy analysis nor Shelly’s through debunking of it. Fetzer seems so desperate to save the sinking ship that his alteration theory has become that he drudges up irrelevant points when one of his “proofs” is blown out of the water. Even if Shelly believed that Kennedy was hit from the front that does not necessarily mean she though that the shot in 313 came from the front and even if she did blood being ejected away from the point of entry would be accelerated by the force of the bullet. A word of advice Jim - You should try to find some real experts to back you claims. You get a VIDEOgrapher to write about the possibilities of FILM post-production and a school teacher with a PHD in particle physics to expound on blood splatter etc. LOL 1) Funny how when the credibility of one of the member’s of Fezter’s little gang is challenged the others show up and try to come to his defense. I pointed this out before 2) I’m not part of Tink’s “gang” 3) Craig didn’t compliment me as slag you and your silly theories which are sinking like a mob victim in cement galoshes Len David I know you are around 60 but that is much to young to be going senile, can't you even remember what you wrote less than a week ago!!! LOL http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6096&view=findpost&p=54805 Fetzer, Mantik, Costella, White and you are all members of this forum. So who are the photo experts in TGZFH? ROTFLMHO So when is that retraction coming? LOL

Terry, Just curious who do you think is "blowing smoke out his ass" on the Z-film debate? Len