David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Oh davie, how many times....sheesh.
I do it FOR ENTERTAINMANT! Its as simple as that. You fools are better than the sitcoms! And it actually improves my photography knowlege.
Now, how about dealing with the pesky Armstrong shadow? What are you afraid of davie? If you could prove me wrong I know you would do it in a heartbeat. Problem is you can't prove me wrong. All you can do is prove White and that nutjob Costella wrong and thats just not something you want to do is it davie?
Your failure to deal with this shows just how dishonest you are.
pour yourself another glass of wine Craigster -- you're obsessive-compulsive when it comes to Jack White and his theories.... When Bill Miller farts, you yell it wasn't me.... Who the hell do you think your kidding..... when the GANG squeaks you're looking for something to oil..... Pass the foamcore....
What was that NASA control number again.....? roflmao!
I see you are at a loss for words again davie...mind all blocked up with silly ct things. Come on davie deal with the Armstrong shadow. You have all of the information, including the answer. Be a man and not a mindless robot for White and crew. You do have a mind...right? Don't you know that shilling for them has destroyed what little of a reputation you had left? I hope dealing falsehoods was worth it for you.
Craig, Bill, David
Why are you guys so damn mean to each other? And what does all of this have to do with being hacked?
Dawn
Leave Jack the hell alone ok. You've offered your opinions about 7,000 times now. Enough already. We don't care. We like and respect Jack.
I take no position on the Z film. If it was altered it still leaves in the headshot....the proof of conspiracy that got this case rolling early on. Attorney Vince Salandria was, I believe, the first to point out the backward motion, using stills from the Z film. I concur with RCD that this issue is secondary. Beyond secondary.
The issues are why was JFK killed and how can we get the media to tell the truth.
Now that Nellie is gone, taking many secrets with her to the grave, this seems a good time to try to get some media people with a quest for truth.
Take a hike Dawn...if you like and respect someone as dishonest as Jack you are worthless.
my-gosh... spoken like a true dry-goods photog..... pass the foam-core -- your making a ass out of yourself
-
Leave Jack the hell alone ok. You've offered your opinions about 7,000 times now. Enough already. We don't care. We like and respect Jack.
Let me ask you a question, Dawn. Here is a hypothetical scenario for you to address ... in one of your trials you have the other side producing a filmed statement of a witness that supports their position. But during your investigation you found that the filmed interview was edited by the opposition to mislead the jury at the expense of your client's freedom. Do you object to the court and ask for sanctions against the opposing side for attempting to decieve the court or do you just say, 'Its OK, Judge ... we like them so lets pretend it didn't happen'?
You people seem to not be able to separate Jack from his alteration work, nor do you seem to be able to grasp the damage that it has caused and will continue to cause in the future as unsuspecting readers hear that garbage. Let me share something Groden has said seeing how you trust him so much ...
Groden: "The record must remain straight " " " " " " This Zapruder film alteration foolishness has done so much harm, that it can not be measured. It is now spilling over into other areas of the photographic evidence in the Kennedy case. I am extremely frustrated by it all " " " " " " Jack knows how disappointed I am about the damage that has been done by the irresponsible crap that has misled so many people in this case."
So Dawn, you either get it or you don't .... things will not change as long as Jack continues to push what Robert called "irresponsible crap that has misled so many people".
Bill Miller
your herowhorship is showing.... have your hero Robert Groden drop by for a post ot two -- I'm sure we can take up a donation, say $20 bucks to make his effort worthwhile... got a few questions for him regarding Mo Weitzman.... my-oh-my, looks like your obsession caught up to you, FINALLY......
-
The Zapruder film is NOT THE FOCUS OF MY WORK, only the LATEST. For years
I gave lectures on the entire gamut of JFK information using more than 500 slides;
my specialties until the last few years are The Backyard Photos, The MC Rifle and
Bullets, The Identity of LHO, and All the Photos of the Assassination.
Jack White has repeatedly demonstrated knowledge about events surrounding President Kennedy's murder that borders on the encyclopedic. He is one of the few researchers left that have been there from the beginning, fighting for the truth. His familiarity with others' research extends far beyond just the photographic evidence, even though that is his area of specialty. In addition, Jack has spent his life in the DFW area, which has helped give him certain unique insights into the case.
The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion.
I agree with Robert Charles-Dunne when he said, ...."the Z-film issue is secondary and has been superceded by other evidence in the case." As usual, Robert quickly gets to the heart of a matter.
A few weeks ago, Jack was going to give his thoughts on Donald Norton. I suspect he got sidetracked.
Sigh, Hogan spews again....
Jack is a flake, that much is known for a fact, as witnessed by his total failure to understand the very basics of the subject he claims expert status...photography. This has been proven over and over and over again...his work is the work of a fool.
Jack also cannot tell the truth, again as witnessed by his last post on this thread.
Jack is highly confrontational. I play by HIS rules which he established on the JFK cult forum many years ago. I was attacked by Jack and his cohorts while pointing out in a civil manner that Jack was mistaken about his photographic claims. Since thats the way he chooses to play I am more than happy to play in the very same manner. Period. He gets no free ride.
Am I obsessed with Jack? No. He is simply a very ample and prolific target. That so many of the loon squad find his work compelling only adds to the target base. This place is what one might call a "target rich environment". I am however obsessed with facts and in case you have missed it, Jack offers very little in the way of facts. It's actually the opposite, Jack stock in trade is disinformation.
And thats a fact.
what did you do to deserve monitoring Jack White and his internet posting regarding "conspiracy" related photo's for all these years? Miller, I can understand, for him its avocation/obsession, wanting to fit in, you on the other hand have a professional reputation to uphold.
You actually think this case is going to be determined by altered or NONE altered film/photos? In the recent past over 75% of the American people polled think something is wrong in the way the JFK case was handled, including we were lied too [for whatever reason].
Where do you fit in this equation, other than a self appointed hall monitor? Do you have a vested interest in preserving [as it is today] the photo/film record of Dealey Plaza, 11/22/63?
Oh davie, how many times....sheesh.
I do it FOR ENTERTAINMANT! Its as simple as that. You fools are better than the sitcoms! And it actually improves my photography knowlege.
Now, how about dealing with the pesky Armstrong shadow? What are you afraid of davie? If you could prove me wrong I know you would do it in a heartbeat. Problem is you can't prove me wrong. All you can do is prove White and that nutjob Costella wrong and thats just not something you want to do is it davie?
Your failure to deal with this shows just how dishonest you are.
pour yourself another glass of wine Craigster -- you're obsessive-compulsive when it comes to Jack White and his theories.... When Bill Miller farts, you yell it wasn't me.... Who the hell do you think your kidding..... when the GANG squeaks you're looking for something to oil..... Pass the foamcore....
What was that NASA control number again.....? roflmao!
-
Dear, bill. You do good work ,too.
The image you present is the acme of this totally confused debate. Thanks.
It always brings me to tears when viewing those 3 frames.
Miller = "acme", might you define that a bit more?
What's to be confused in the debate, Miller and Co. believe nothing is amiss or altered when it comes to JFK DP and other assassination related film/photos -- other's are not so sure!
If you could define "acme" a bit further, though.
Thanks
-
The Zapruder film is NOT THE FOCUS OF MY WORK, only the LATEST. For years
I gave lectures on the entire gamut of JFK information using more than 500 slides;
my specialties until the last few years are The Backyard Photos, The MC Rifle and
Bullets, The Identity of LHO, and All the Photos of the Assassination.
Jack White has repeatedly demonstrated knowledge about events surrounding President Kennedy's murder that borders on the encyclopedic. He is one of the few researchers left that have been there from the beginning, fighting for the truth. His familiarity with others' research extends far beyond just the photographic evidence, even though that is his area of specialty. In addition, Jack has spent his life in the DFW area, which has helped give him certain unique insights into the case.
The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion.
I agree with Robert Charles-Dunne when he said, ...."the Z-film issue is secondary and has been superceded by other evidence in the case." As usual, Robert quickly gets to the heart of a matter.
A few weeks ago, Jack was going to give his thoughts on Donald Norton. I suspect he got sidetracked.
Sigh, Hogan spews again....
Jack is a flake, that much is known for a fact, as witnessed by his total failure to understand the very basics of the subject he claims expert status...photography. This has been proven over and over and over again...his work is the work of a fool.
Jack also cannot tell the truth, again as witnessed by his last post on this thread.
Jack is highly confrontational. I play by HIS rules which he established on the JFK cult forum many years ago. I was attacked by Jack and his cohorts while pointing out in a civil manner that Jack was mistaken about his photographic claims. Since thats the way he chooses to play I am more than happy to play in the very same manner. Period. He gets no free ride.
Am I obsessed with Jack? No. He is simply a very ample and prolific target. That so many of the loon squad find his work compelling only adds to the target base. This place is what one might call a "target rich environment". I am however obsessed with facts and in case you have missed it, Jack offers very little in the way of facts. It's actually the opposite, Jack stock in trade is disinformation.
And thats a fact.
what did you do to deserve monitoring Jack White and his internet posting regarding "conspiracy" related photo's for all these years? Miller, I can understand, for him its avocation/obsession, wanting to fit in, you on the other hand have a professional reputation to uphold.
You actually think this case is going to be determined by altered or NONE altered film/photos? In the recent past over 75% of the American people polled think something is wrong in the way the JFK case was handled, including we were lied too [for whatever reason].
Where do you fit in this equation, other than a self appointed hall monitor? Do you have a vested interest in preserving [as it is today] the photo/film record of Dealey Plaza, 11/22/63?
-
Top Post
see you on the threads, stay tuned....
Right, David .... I have been waiting for years and I can wait until hell freezes over because you cannot do to Kodachrome II film what you have proposed and have it go undetected. In fact, until Groden mentioned it and I presented it to you - you didn't know anything about it. So rather than to admit that you didn't think things through - we'll just pretend that we are going to wait for something that is never going to happen.
Bill
*******************
dgh:Groden mentioned, what? roflmfao! You're not going down that ole tried and sorry path of altering film at the 8mm level are you? Jesus, what kind of stumps are on the non-altered film side of the equation? Oh-wee, buy Fielding's book and read it (the 1965 edition)... better yet, read my article -- take a walk on the wild side, LOL!
I do believe Roland Zavada buried that 8mm-8mm argument a few years back, and for the record BMiller, any alteration that took place in the Z-film happened at the 35mm level, multiple ways of accomplishing same... as I suggest and graphically displayed 6 years ago -- just like they do in the big leagues, the results dumped down to K-II 8mm film....
-
dgh" why don't you post the exact quote that offends your sensabilities. Cease alluding to, show the lurkers what your talking about. Grandstanding is so unbecoming, you have that little faith in Lurkers?... a cite will work wonders? While your at it, take the Costella's website points apart -- step by step, I've been waiting for one of you drone artists attempt at that (get your Physicist's line up, you'll NEED 'em)
It wasn't just a few weeks or so ago that we went over this stuff. Besides, it is good practice for those to learn how to use the forum search engine so they can go read the things you can't seem to recall saying. (God, I love those archives!)
dgh:Groden's opinion, ROFLMAO? His credibility and motives are tainted/suspect at BEST.... rofl, you need a new hero, BillDavid, Dawn said she trust Groden's opinions, thus I shared them with her. xxxxx elsewhere!
Bill Miller
looks like you really stepped in it this time..... Now you're being called a xxxx as well as a fraud.....
p.s. to show I'm not prejudice, I don't care whose opinion Dawn trusts -- coming from you, I suspect Dawn's the best confirmation we're going to see re YOUR photo interpretation shills, whoops skills... what did you say your experience was again.... we can't hear you!
-
'Bill Miller' dronned on:
[...]
These alterationist know so little about the subject they are pretending to understand that they say things that are really absurd. Healy tells people to read Costella's web page. On that very web page, Costella finds it suspicious that the Life Magazine's prints are clearer than the MPI version of the Zapruder film.
dgh" why don't you post the exact quote that offends your sensabilities. Cease alluding to, show the lurkers what your talking about. Grandstanding is so unbecoming, you have that little faith in Lurkers?... a cite will work wonders? While your at it, take the Costella's website points apart -- step by step, I've been waiting for one of you drone artists attempt at that (get your Physicist's line up, you'll NEED 'em)
Costella fails to see that Life Magazine made prints from the camera original and MPI took photographs of the camera original's frames - ran them through a series of processes (some of which lose clarity/sharpness) - and then transferred the images onto film made for research purposes. Now in a court of Law, which picture would you find more reliable - a 1st generation photo or a third generation photo that has been filtered down? Groden becomes so disgusted at these guys because they have not bothered to learn the subject well enough to discuss it intelligently. Look at the colors seen on the Life print and compare them to the same colors on the MPI version ... this is just one aspect of determining whether one is looking at copies that are generations away from the original. The differences are so noticeable that one doesn't need to be an expert to see them with your own eyes even if you didn't know the causes for them - that's where people like Groden or Zavada come into play ... they know the "why's". You should do a search and go back and read the responses Healy gave and when you do - you will trust Groden's opinions even more.
dgh:Groden's opinion, ROFLMAO? His credibility and motives are tainted/suspect at BEST.... rofl, you need a new hero, Bill
Bill Miller
-
'Bill Miller'
dgh: "very complicated process..." LOL who said ANY film was altered on Kodachrome film? That's where rank Lone Nutter amateurishness becomes apparent.... Classic 'nutter' disinformation. The preservers of DP film/photo history can't give us a date as to when Shaneyfelt [if it was him] numbered the Z-frames. How can we expect them to undertake the subject of film alteration when they can't even determine when the frames were numbered....I believe that Shaneyfelt gave the week of the month that he took possession of the images and the numbering would have been one of the first things he did. Is someone suggesting that we need to know the hour and minute of the day the numbering started??? As has been posted by me already - Shaneyfelt's personal notes are to be donated to the Museum, so possibly the precise answer lies within those notes. However, I doubt that the exact time of day will stop the monkey spanking that Healy enjoys.
dgh01: just starting -- the facts Bill, your opinions are irrelevant, what you think is irrelevant... focus up, when were the frames numbered?
So you think the film that was seen in Zapruder's office the next morning wasn't Kodakchrome? Obviously the finished product including the copies were on Kodakcrome. IIRC Stoley took possession of the films then an there and stills were printed in Life 2 or 3 days later.
dgh01: how you arrive at that, did I say that? your snipping speaks volumes -- old time, LONGTIME Lone Nutter tactic, when you don't know or try to steer the thread to something you can't or won'd discuss -- snip, re-phrase the point, then RUN....
Stoley took possession of the film and stills were printed before 24 hrs had elapsed because by Sunday morning the stills had been made and carefully gone over so to send them to publication. I believe that shipments of them magazines were completed by Sunday night because they were being mailed to customers by the next morning.
dgh01: ah so WHAT! Tell me WHY thats relevant to a Z-film alteration scenario?
Bill Miller
-
'Len Colby'
Dawn you raise a good point: why do so many threads on this forum inevitably get hijacked into debates about the authenticity Z-film? The answer to that is very simple, David Healy. The guy is positively obsessed it seems with Roland Zavada's (the inventor of Kodakchrome II) latest treatise (he has already written 2) on why the National Archives copy of the film can not be a copy.
dgh: ahh, you moron, Roland Zavada deceided to re-write his Zavada Report, he told me he was going top do it 3 years ago while he attended a SMPTE conference at North Shore Lake Tahoe. He announced it publicly after the first of this year.... idiot stick here stuck himself in the middle [along with Miller] been shucking and jiving ever since....
He is so obsessed with this question he brings it up on most threads I post on even when, as in this case, the issue is totally off topic. He has even brought it up on threads in the "Political Conspiracies" section that aren't even about the assassination! The digression began with this post of David's
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=73308
dgh: only a idiot would think the JFK assassination WASN'T a political conspiracy... what the hell do they feed you guys down there?
Proof that the Z-film is authentic is a complex question, I don't think starting a new thread is the answer because it would end up being a repeat of the existent ones. My main reason for believing it's authentic are:
of course you don't want a thread started regarding the the authenticity of the Z-film! You'd have to display something here other than hot air -- of course we know you're incapable of discourse when it comes to the film/photos of Dealey Plaza, unless you can take a few swings at JackW.
1) The technology and know how probably didn't exist in 1963/4 to make the alterations alleged by the authors of "Hoax". Healy and White etc have yet to cite a single movie from that period or earlier where such extensive effects are employed. Zavada said the technology and know how didn't exist back then and Ray Fielding, author of one the most important books about special effects, who Healy cited said such alteration were not possible at the time.
Ray did? Funny he's not published anywhere, that I know of saying that, won't comment on anything....
Please provide where I QUOTE Ray Fielding in HOAX regarding ANYTHING. Quick glance in the index shows Fielding's name twice, pg. 120 and 292, the reader may be interested in Ray Fieldings quote on page 292 [in the same HOAX] "Raymond Fielding (A History of the American Motion Picture Newsreel, Univ of So. Cal 1961, pp5-6 reports: 'Apparently there was NOT a single major [film] producer in the period 1894 to 1900 that did NOT fake newsfilm as a matter common practice...'
So Leonard, it appears the art of film fakery was a much practiced for quite some time -- straight from a 1961 Ray Fielding dissertation... We haven't even touched commercial films yet....
The director of "The Commission" and Oliver Stone likewise have said such alterations were impossible.
2) Zavada examined the film and stated in no uncertain terms that the copy held by the National Archives is definitely a "camera original" and not a copy.
dgh: I do believe he confirmed the in-camera Zapruder film to be original Kodacolor II film as well as the original Jamieson prints [whats left of them] And I suspect Doug Horne's new book will have comments regarding same. I doubt Roland Zavada is competent enough to comment on ANY optical film printing technique. An area certainly beyond his original reports mandate...
3) Robert Groden also examined the film and said he believes it's an original and not a copy.
dgh: How this guy acquired all these DP related films/autopsy imagery and whatnot remains a mystery -- his testimony certainly leaves a lot of unanswered questions.... frankly that's where JackW and I part... I don't trust Robert Groden any further than I can throw him...
4) The film was shot on Kodakchrome II. Kodakchrome is very complicated to develop at the time the assassination only a handful of labs (3 Kodak and 3 independents IIRC) were able to develop it, the "alterationist" haven't explained where the altered copy might have been developed. It also took several hours to develop, the alterationist have yet to come up with a chronology that leaves enough lime for an altered copy to have reached Zapruder's office early the next morning. Presumably if the plotters were going to such a thing they would want to process the film at a lab they controlled, in that case they would have used Ektachrome which is much simpler to develop.
dgh: "very complicated process..." LOL who said ANY film was altered on Kodachrome film? That's where rank Lone Nutter amateurishness becomes apparent.... Classic 'nutter' disinformation. The preservers of DP film/photo history can't give us a date as to when Shaneyfelt [if it was him] numbered the Z-frames. How can we expect them to undertake the subject of film alteration when they can't even determine when the frames were numbered....
5) All the supposed anomalies have been debunked
6) The alterationist can't find a single film postproduction expert to back their claims; the closet they get is Healy who is a videographer.
dgh: LMFAO! Nothing has been debunked, that's why you guy's have been running around in circles for 4 years, you're just the latest Nutter to join the ranks -- your film/photoexpertise is what again? That's right, of course.... Bill Miller CHEERLEADER tsk-tsk
Len
-
I live in Northern California and have been an avid folower of the JFK assassination for 40 years. I have been a member of JKLancer for several months and have lent my expertise in the funeral/cemetery industry where that can help researchers. I have posted very little while I am learning more and more.
Hey Don,
Welcome to the forum! Quick question, that is if you're a mortician: how has *mortuary arts* changed over the years, say, since 1963?
David Healy
-
Jack has snared himself a groupie. Will wonders never cease. What impresses you the most? His incompetent grasp of photography? His reckless, defamatory charges of assassination complicity? His "paid provacateurs" rant? His misunderstanding of lunar lighting? His refusal to identify and confront real evil in the world? Just wondering.
Sit down Slattery, the GOP has its hands full and your screwing around trying to make hay with 43 year old images you haven't a clue about! Not to mention, being yanked around by a few aging photographers. All we gotta do is post something, anything and YOUR bell is wrung, champ....
Personally, I think its a riot Jack yanks so many (gotta be 5-7) chains around here..... you're as predictable as clockwork!
-
I'll also note: .... the claim of 'altered' JFK assassination releated photos was tagged as *nonesense* for a long, long time. Some are not so sure, now.... for good reason!
Yes, the alteration claims were tagged nonsense alright ........... within seconds of seeing them and the ridiculous mistakes that were made that helped create those claims. As far as 'some not being sure about alteration' ... those would be the people who don't know why a first generation Life copy of the Zapruder frames would be sharper than a multi-generation MPI version of the Zapruder film. To thoser people - they will always not be sure about anything pertaining to the photographical record.
Bill Miller
ahh.... the mantra
seems I just saw a post on this board that numbered LIFE Z-film frames (even those that were published within the first week). Perhaps one of these wonder boys can tell this forum who assigned numbers to the Z-frames and why the frame designations were not asigned when the issue were published?
Why no Z-film frame of Mary Moorman *on the grass* in the Nov 29th 1963 issue of LIFE, or the Memorial issue? Same for the October 2nd 1964 issue, NO Z-film frame published of Mary Moorman *on the grass*.
Surely the Zapruder frames were numbered, why didn't LIFE published the Z-frame numbers when publishing the frames in the October 2nd 1964 issue selling the WCR and its conclusions....
No Mary Moorman *on the grass* in Z-film frames, LIFE issue November 25th 1966. The magazine
title/cover story: Did Oswald act alone? A MATTER OF REASONABLE DOUBT.
Now, we see in LIFE published frames being assigned Z-frame designation numbers. Did Moorman EVER appear in a Z-frame LIFE published the first 3 years after the assassination?
-
dgh: well, Len your a newbie to this, I don't expect you to know 1/10th of what you claim to know when it comes to DP/JFK films. Nor have you or most everyone else on this board been on research forums where Jack posted a significant part of his JFK photo material (some opposed).
Please show where I have claimed to be especially knowledgeable about the subject. I've never seen Jack admit error here. I belong to another JFK forum (along with Tink, Fetzer, Craig and Martin Shakleford) but Jack doesn't post there. If you know of any cases where he admitted error here or elsewhere perhaps you can enlighten us.
What's plain and simple to me is this, until someone posts their qualifications regarding professional film/photo analysis to this board -- expect more of the sameWhat qualifications along those lines do Jack or you have?
now what does Elvis has left the room, the Brits, the Shrubs, the Rothchilds, "lizard people", AND the Holocaust have to do with JFK/DP film-photos? The relevance of this escapes me...Then you are not nearly as clever as you imagine. You really couldn't figure it out? You claimed that an increasing number of people doubt the authenticity DP images and suggested that this vindicated your position. I pointed out that people believe all manners of nonsense so just because people believe something doesn't mean it's true or even resonable.
Is this the best the preservers of DP photo history can mount, when it comes to a arguement -- pretty weak stuff, champ... foolish actually? I suspect that nonesense to come from Miller or Hogan -- not you!You used to dismiss me as a "tard" now it seems I've grown in your estimation I don't whether I should he honored or ashamed
btw, I was in-touch with Roland Zavada this morning....So ah, you want me to give ya a medal, or sumthin? Does he know you misquoted him. Isn't it time you did what you claim Jack does and admit your error when proven wrong.
Colby, for some reason, and I suspect I know how you endeared yourself with the preservers of Dealey Plaza film/phot history -- Miller comes with too much baggage and you were given the nod to deal with Roland, I figure that gives a step up on the rest of the Lone Nut loons around here... that by no means means you pass anything of photographic interpretation value here [unless your passing gas].
If you think that was a compliment, you're spending way to much time running around that jungle down there.
Come to think of it, you haven't issued or put forth any, ANY type of photo research for us to evaluate regarding the JFK assassination. You're just another cheerleader Josiah recognized -- makes on wonder what the hell your wasting all this valuable bandwidth for?
Actually all Lone Nutters on this board appear to do nothing but *scramble*, play catch up to JackW. -- gotta be 5000 posts to this board refuting Jack White -- makes one wonder whose dangling on the end of a string..... LMAO --
I've been proven wrong? -- Colby you've proven absolutely Z E R O, NADA, Ziltch... You Miller, Lamson and a few others are a JOKE when it comes to the film/photos of Nov 22nd 1963. We also know, you and the rest of the gang would never appear on a public forum [for the cameras] to debate Dealey Plaza film/photo issues...
Muwah, proven wrong, vindicated ? -- ask RZavada, hey, ask Ray Fielding if they've proven me wrong, post their comments right here!
Space allocated for RZavada's and RFielding's commentsBTW, how many books during the past 20 years were published stating the films/photos of Dealey Plaza and other assassination related images (including x-ray's) were altered, and/or labelled as outright fraud (another coming out soon)?
How many books published countering those claims?
You are a 'tard' when it comes to the photographic record, nothing to be ashamed of -- you're out of your league..... hell, that never stopped Miller either.... don't sweat it, just don't expect respect from those that do have subject expertise.
Truck on champ, truck on
-
Thanks, Brian. But you can expect to be attacked unmercifully here
for supporting me. Lots of lonenutters. Welcome to the forum.
Jack
Yeah, those guys are all over the internet. You think this place is bad, you should check out the IMDb forum. That place is infested with them. Possibly some of the same ones on this site too. It's pretty obvious what their M.O. is as soon as they start posting. They waste no time getting started with the ad hominum attacks and trolling tactics. I really have to wonder if some of them get paid to do it. Regardless, they are relatively easy to spot.
Welcome Brian... it does get bumpy around here
!David Healy
-
'Len Colby' wrote:
Jack has been corrected on more than one occasion by others and he's corrected me and others on more than one occasion -- with reasonablness, politeness and respect, it goes a long way...Can you cite an occasion when Jack has admitted error in his photo-analysis? I don't remember a single case, what I remember him frequently doing is simply ignoring instances when his errors have been pointed (or questions raised) out or attacking the messenger. Whether the person questioning his conclusions is polite or not seems to make no difference.
dgh: well, Len your a newbie to this, I don't expect you to know 1/10th of what you claim to know when it comes to DP/JFK films. Nor have you or most everyone else on this board been on research forums where Jack posted a significant part of his JFK photo material (some opposed). What's plain and simple to me is this, until someone posts their qualifications regarding professional film/photo analysis to this board -- expect more of the same...
I'll also note: .... the claim of 'altered' JFK assassination releated photos was tagged as *nonesense* for a long, long time. Some are not so sure, now.... for good reason!There is no idea so absurd that some people won't believe it, there are people who believe Elvis is still alive and people who believe the British royal family, the Bushes and the Rothchilds (among others) are shape shifting "lizard people" a member of the forum is a Holocaust "revisionist" Obviously the people who believe these things think their fellow believers have "good reason" for believing them to be true.
now what does Elvis has left the room, the Brits, the Shrubs, the Rothchilds, "lizard people", AND the Holocaust have to do with JFK/DP film-photos? The relevance of this escapes me... Is this the best the preservers of DP photo history can mount, when it comes to a arguement -- pretty weak stuff, champ... foolish actually? I suspect that nonesense to come from Miller or Hogan -- not you!
btw, I was in-touch with Roland Zavada this morning....
[...]
-
'Evan Burton' wrote:
[...]
You rarely - if ever - apologise to those who show up your mistakes, do you? Despite being proven incorrect with your Apollo nonsense, you blatently continue to propagate your errors and, in some cases, downright lies.
(You've called me a xxxx in the past -when it was baseless - so I figure with the latest supposition the gloves are off)
you're new to this Evan, Jack has been corrected on more than one occasion by others and he's corrected me and others on more than one occasion -- with reasonablness, politeness and respect, it goes a long way...
I'll also note: .... the claim of 'altered' JFK assassination releated photos was tagged as *nonesense* for a long, long time. Some are not so sure, now.... for good reason!
-
'Peter Lemkin' wrote:
Ashton, maybe someone in the Dallas area or who-knows-where has GPS data for DP and area if that can be input easily [?] or survey coordinates maybe [and may WELL NOT BE] obtainable from the city of Dallas. The only 'problem' I see if you start passing your GREAT work around is each person will add a bit here a building detail or person there....and
1) There needs to be a 'reference' composite version - I think you should be in charge of that.
2) There needs to be some kind of quality control over changes/additions by others.
3) As with various versions of MS-Word documents, I hope it can keep track of individual's changes by name....likely not.
This, if done completely and eventually on a full CAD program with all the bells and whistles - even allowing time changes and VR glasses etc. might be both a GREAT research aide but also of interest to the public via a documentary evenually.
********************
Peter,
I believe the USGS has latter day topos for the DP area... getting accurate DP topo data circa. 1963, is another animal -- perhaps Tom Purvis may be able to point Ashton in the right direction. I've requested the same info over the years. IF its out there, nobody is giving it up...
Based on DMyers website, he didn't use elevations from USGS topos maps when he created his animated [Zapruder film based] cartoon for the ABC documentary...
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm
DHealy
-
I would be gratefull if the other side might post a similarly concise reasoning as to why they think the film was not faked.
This is about as concise as it's gonna get:
Why the Zapruder Film is Authentic
Presented in Dallas on Friday, November 20, 1998
by Dr. Josiah Thompson
Maybe Rigby believes that Thompson, like Weisberg is a witting servant of the CIA.
About time you found that? Josiah's article has been a Dealey Plaza film/photo [preservers of the assassination historical record] mainstay for quite a while....
Keep looking over your shoulder Mr. Hogan, da spooks be out tonight... ask BMiller, he thinks everyone that disagrees with him is paranoid... lmao!
-
'Bill Miller' wrote:
Now if you want to arrange a session where 5 or 6 film effects compositors can get together and view the *latest* NARA version of the in-camera Zapruder film, that might get us a step closer...The latest copy of the Zfilm is meaningless ... you set up having your compositors go view the original Zfilm, but take someone with you who would know what to look for.
Bill Miller
Meaningless? my-oh-my Gary Mack will like knowing THAT, so will the American taxpayer, you know the ones that paid the 16Million buckeroos for what you call a *meaningless* film.....
How you making out with Mr. Rigby, when he's through with you, you can tell me who numbered all those Zapruder frames that appeared in LIFE, Nov '63 publications...
BTW, no research is done on internet boards USNET or otherwise, your *newbyness* is showing. Just trolls out here, you fit right-in.....
Who would know what to look for, AGAIN?
-
What you *cannot* help but notice, is no concern of mine. Personally, I could care less what you, or the rest of the DP photo/film non-alteration lapdogs notice, OR think --
Yet you continue to respond like an ill-tempered little kid ... always on ther side of paranoia - Interesting!
At the moment, he, Zavada hasn't produced. He flew to see a person I referred to in my original HOAX presentation, he enlisted that same person [Ray Fielding] and his services for the new Zavada Report and update. AFTER that same person told me he WASN'T interested in working on the Zavada update. When Roland Zavada informed me of of Fielding's recruitment [and his professional expertise in his update], he also informed me he'd have the update completed soon. That same update to be posted to this forum (and others, according to Josiah Thompson, *wide purchase*) which I will respond. That was in February 2006 --[Len Colby to act as Zavada's intermediary to this forum]Zavada is not a young man anymore and life throws people curves that they must get through. I am sure that you will one day get your report, but as I said before - Zavada had a good excuse for his delay, unlike yours whereas you don't produce on your promises because you have spent too much time trolling JFK forums.
Your MO preceeded you here by months, Bill. Do us a favor -- stick to what you know, and tell us what that might be!Thanks
If my MO was 'exposing the piss-poor research that went into the film and photo alteration claims', then it was certainly accurate. It was that same approach that backed you into a corner whereas you had no choice but to admit that you too, have never seen any signs of film and photo alteration .... a remark that I am sure haunts you to this day and certainly one I will not let you to forget any time soon.
Bill Miller
Zavada, he's not a young man anymore? Sounded pretty spry and chipper when I last spoke to him.... Appears he enjoyed sparring with Livingstone, went so far as to come all the way to the west coast to enjoy the debate -- Have you spoke to him? Is this an official announcement from the DP film/photo purist camp that Rollie is taking a pass on this? You wearing that mantle now, Is Colby out of the loop?
Ah, what corner is that that I'm backed up into? Remember dimbulb; I'm the one that can't prove Z-film alteration, on the record and published as same.
Now if you want to arrange a session where 5 or 6 film effects compositors can get together and view the *latest* NARA version of the in-camera Zapruder film, that might get us a step closer...
-
when it comes to "theories", how is Roalnd Zavada and Ray Fielding doing re the upcoming new and improved ZAVADA report....? As you, representing [to this forum] their side of the report; how are they pprogressing? 8 months and counting.
David, I cannot help but notice that while you don't mind not keeping YOUR promises to produce ... you seem to be overly concerned about Zavada's findings. Unlike the claims found in the 'Hoax' book concerning film and photo alteration which appears to have gotten little forethought before being put into print, people like Zavada take their time so to strive for accuracy for they are playing to a more advance scholarly crowd than what we find on these forums.
I hope that your lack of patience with Zavada and Jack's new collection of illustrations isn't a sign of another new alteration book in the works that is dedicated to poor research practices everywhere.
Bill Miller
Bill,
What you *cannot* help but notice, is no concern of mine. Personally, I could care less what you, or the rest of the DP photo/film non-alteration lapdogs notice, OR think --
What Roland Zavada adds-changes to his initial film/photo/x-ray report DOES interest me! I suspect there are many on the Dealey Plaza film/photo *purist* advocate side of things, who have that same interest.
At the moment, he, Zavada hasn't produced. He flew to see a person I referred to in my original HOAX presentation, he enlisted that same person [Ray Fielding] and his services for the new Zavada Report and update. AFTER that same person told me he WASN'T interested in working on the Zavada update. When Roland Zavada informed me of of Fielding's recruitment [and his professional expertise in his update], he also informed me he'd have the update completed soon. That same update to be posted to this forum (and others, according to Josiah Thompson, *wide purchase*) which I will respond. That was in February 2006 --[Len Colby to act as Zavada's intermediary to this forum]
Roland Zavada and I have had non-confrontational conversations since the book HOAX was published (I guess he saved that for Harry Livingstone).
Roland Zavada's initial visit with Ray Fielding [author of: The Art of Special Effects Cinematography, 1965] was AFTER the release of HOAX, topic of discussion: the Zapruder Film.
Your MO preceeded you here by months, Bill. Do us a favor -- stick to what you know, and tell us what that might be!
Thanks
-
While Andy and myself were away on our holidays the Forum came under attack from a computer based in Australia. They employed software that used up 98% of our total bandwidth for the month. One again we have had to spend more money to get the Forum back online.
We are currently searching for the culprit. What we do know is that the person responsible was using the IP 59.106.128.138
Thanks, John. We know Burton is an Aussie and avid defender of official stories...you don't suppose....naw, too obvious.
Jack
Jack for all your complaints about provocateurs on this forum lately the worst offender has been you, stop being such a hypocrite. Let’s see you keep accusing Bill of being somebody else, you started what was it three or four threads attacking Gary Mack, you called Evan a xxxx for correctly citing your position that the Moon landings were faked. Just today you accused Brendan, Craig, Bill and I of being accessories after the fact to the JFK assassination because we cast doubt on your theory that just about every image taken in DP that day was altered, funny you didn’t level that accusation at Grodin or Martin Schakleford or Josiah Thompson who have likewise opposed your theories. And now you insinuate without any evidence that Evan was responsible for bringing down the forum should I point out that your co-author John Costella is also an Australian and that he has written sophisticated computer programs and that Sid Walker a webmaster also hails from “down under”. It seems that John Simkin was wrong anyway according to info turned up by John Dolva and Dave Weaver the hacker was based in Osaka not Australia.
Evan’s position AFAIK is that he has no position regarding the assassination, He has opposed your nonsense regarding the Moon landings, ‘chemtrails’ and 9/11. In all those cases he gets the better of you so there would be no need from him to want to crash the forum.
when it comes to "theories", how is Roalnd Zavada and Ray Fielding doing re the upcoming new and improved ZAVADA report....? As you, representing [to this forum] their side of the report; how are they pprogressing? 8 months and counting.
-
Gee Jack, I guess you just blew any right you had to complain that anybody else on this forum is a provocatur. Since under American law the insane are not liable for their actions you're off the hook.
What is this now pick on Jack White day? When any of you has contributed the amount of time, energy and dedicaton of Jack White, then chuck your wad but til then plese stay on topic.
Dawn
Time, energy and dedication are for naught IF your skill set is lacking, and Jacks skill set is more than lacking, it's MISSING IN ACTION. Jack has no "wad". He has been shooting blanks.
And btw Len WAS on topic.
wad, shooting blanks -- skill sets? Next you'll be challenging NASA photos -- pass the foam-cor, drygoods photog, roflmfao!
Hacked again?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
all Jack has to do is post -- and YOU go bonkers