David G. Healy

see

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ic=7713&hl=

on related thread

Rumor has it, Ken Rahn has taken to writing a book. After all, he did decline to defend his NAA theory during Gary Ag's get-to-gether... Damage control by the ton is flooding the 2 USNET, JFK boards. Ken Rahn is quiet as a mouse...

Recently I have been harassed by email by a "researcher"

using a name I have never heard of. "He" is familiar with

discussions on this forum, yet is not a registered member.

His writing style and insults are very similar to some of

the provocateurs here. He chastises me for "misleading

young impressionable researchers" with all of my "misbegotten

conclusions." He admonishes me for not learning the definition

of "photogrammetry" before going to Washington to testify...

all the same phony claims. I think I know who is responsible

for this harassment, but I doubt that "he" will own up to it.

Using phony names is a common tactic of these cowards.

Jack

Jack -- If its Lowry -- see below.

Martin S. and Gary Ag.... outted him. He popped onto the alt.conspiracy.jfk board right after summer vacaton started, prostelyzing for Mel Ayton...

I guess Lowry (aka: JLeyden) didn't know Gary Ag has debated Ayton, and kicked his ass... On the main USNET JFK board, Lone Nutters have taken a serious beating of late, McAdams dusts a few, old time Nutters off, roll 'em out for another round... Not working this time...

As old Harold said: all you need is the WCR evidence/testimony

'Brendan Slattery' wrote:

No mystery at all, Jack.

Tom Lowry wrote:

[...]

Get your weenie Lone Neuter names correct, its NOT Lower-y it's JLeyden (more fondly called: Jelly).... Geez, nothing like being behind the times -- Jelly's been exposed for a few weeks now. Actually he's been talking mostly to himself on the alt.conspiracy.jfk board for few weeks, he puts up about 200 posts/responses a day. Typical Mel Ayton/Kenny Rahn acolyte... You know what we mean, just another McAdams ass kisser with a horrible self-image --

He'll be gone in a few weeks, school starts up and the football team will need his services once again. All orginzations need a waterboy -- what are you up to this fall?

Despite an apparent general indifference to the square-city-block of sucking vacuum called the County Courts (or Criminal Courts)/County Records building that looks down over Dealey Plaza, I was determined to pursue this—well, "angle" is the only word that will serve.

To that end (and many others) I created a 3D model of Dealey Plaza, opened the damned windows of the place, and took a look. Here's what I saw from two of them:

Here is a view from behind the north pergola that identifies the two windows being viewed through above. (The number/letter system of window identification is just an arbitrary system I created to keep track of them):

Here's looking at you, kid.

Ashton Gray

very nice work, Ashton

Look forward to updates

post the picture, Dim-Bulb! I'll take a look when I get back to town...

some of us do remotes on the weekend, you know.....

Bump for davie....are you a man of your word? Ever going to deal with this or are you gutless?

Ah... what word might that be? Don't see where there's any Lone Neuter's I'm looking to impress with my truth? Certainly not slumming for new clients. Who do I have to impress with ANY word, hell this is the internet... If you can't convince me, the guy that can't prove the Z-film is altered, you got dog-pokey, champ.... nothing but white noise so deal with it....

Now, where's a functioning NASA link! NASA's inventory control number would be nice, special, SPECIAL NASA Apollo photo... if you cropped the image an overlay of the crop OVER the original -- we'll go from there, You don't have the time, be a man; have Miller do it!

**F L U S H** this is way beyond you, Bill! I'm speaking to someone that SHOULD know what admissable evidence is Sit down.....

Let the forum archive with your responses be all the evidence that I need .... everything said about you is a matter of forum record.

"Let justice be done though the Heavens fall"

Bill Miller

shilling for Sherry, is not the way to go, champ. You think she's not old enough to answer herself?

Sherry best I can tell you've got 30 minutes of stage time at Lancer, you should be able to condense that down so a simple minded person, seated on a jury, will *get* whats needed for a conviction. Feel free referring to/using Myers animation imagery with additional overlays

Best regard's

DHealy

Sherry, most people know that Healy is little more than some jerk-off who gets his jollies trolling these forums. You are correct about the quality of the responses he gives, but he is not interested in JFK or his murder. Healy will say that unless he can hold all the original assassination photos and films in his hands, even though he is not qualified to know what he should be looking for, then in his view those images cannot be trusted ... even though he only says this when someone like me or yourself is posting information found within those said images. When Jack makes some idiotic claim or any other person promoting paranoia by way of some of the muddiest images I have ever seen, then Healy sits quiet. Nowhere in 'Hoax' does he tell the reader that the part of the book promoting alteration cannot be trusted for the same reasons that he gives us. One has to ask themselves why that is and because it is that way, then why is Healy even involved with these forums? Just as there is said to be disinformationist promoting the lone assassin theory, the same can be said about Healy being at the other end of the scale. Sometimes I have to wonder but what Healy's purpose here is to make CT's look totally ignorant and uninterested in knowing the evidence of this case. By his seemingly wishing to come across this way, then others can be looked upon in the same manner by 'guilt by association'. I mean look at the statement this moron gave you above! Maybe Healy thinks somehow that he has contributed something when he makes such disjointed statements in his responses, or maybe he tries to hide the fact that he doesn't know the subject matter well enough to intelligently discuss it with you, either way it is his problem. If John Simkin ever made a rule of engagement to where someone must offer actual data to support their responses, then Healy's time posting here would become nonexistent. Look back through Healy's responses on this forum or any other forum as far as that goes and let me know of one instance where he has ever said that he went into the Dallas Morning News, NARA, etc., and asked to see the original negative of any assassination photo or film so to have authenticated any one of them. Where most of us take the evidence as it is and we look for things that either support the offical version or discredits it - Healy does nothing but sit back and promote paranoia over the evidence of a case that he has shown no real interest in learning anything about it. This is the difference in how you feel about what happened to John F. Kennedy Vs. how Healy feels about it.

Bill Miller

**F L U S H** this is way beyond you, Bill! I'm speaking to someone that SHOULD know what admissable evidence is so, sit down please.....

'Sherry Gutierrez' wrote:

So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again?

David, I am a court certified expert in this field. I used the same techniques used by all experts in this field. Those techniques and methods of documentation are detailed in my articles which have been available on the web for some time; and discussed at length on this and the JFK Lancer forum. Additionally, perhaps you could refer to the first post I made in this thread.

here's a basic question, can you prove [or convince me beyond a reasonable doubt] JFK was hit by one, two, or three 6.5mm FMJ rounds and from where, based on available DP photo's and film? We can go from there....

I noticed in all your post you never really address the issues, you just focus on attempting to discredit the person presenting the information.

when there's valid points of evidentary value I'll chime in with them -- what I see is pure opinion and conjecture, here and elsewhere... You don't agree?

That is a bad habit, and a poor research technique. (That's what attorneys do in court when they are losing and haven't any hope of discreting the evidence - they attack the expert; guess you know that already though.)

well hell Sherry, you caught me [you might want to spend a little of your off research time and watch Bill Miller's posts]. Now, no matter how you cut it, this is what you have to deal with, "how'd you do a blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, from what appears as a altered, umpteenth generation-40+ year old, 8mm film?" They only gave you 30 minutes of Lancer time to explain this? Maybe they can find a PhD somewhere that can use the remaining 30 minutes of the block to explain away John Costella...

-and-

Do I have to tell YOU why there's no "professional" peer review regarding the photo's/film of Dealey Plaza, nor will there be a peer review of "blood spatter analysis" -- just unsubstantiated best case single source opinion, period!

I really do wish you would do some outside reading on this subject - there are books at your local library, if you don't trust the information on the internet. Or call a local police agency and ask their forensic personel for information.

Hey, what are you talking about? We invented CSI, the show in this town... couple NYC Detectives invented the science at the end of the 1800's yes?

Then you could address the issues from an informed and educated foundation. Of course, I'm sure there are those who wouldn't like that, they prefer let you be the one ultimately proved wrong.

Please, David, spend some time researching other sources for information concerning bloodspatter analysis.

Sherry best I can tell you've got 30 minutes of stage time at Lancer, you should be able to condense that down so a simple minded person, seated on a jury, will *get* whats needed for a conviction. Feel free referring to/using Myers animation imagery with additional overlays

Best regard's

DHealy

Sherry

Glad you snapped to there Len....

And you EXPECT one with Bowel Movement Bill?

BTW, as the the representative [to this forum] for Roland Zavada, and his new and improved report do you have any news? Been 8 months now... He's not still pissed at Harry Livingstone is he? Lurkers on this forum shouldn't have to pay for that...

Dave I won't even bother responding to you attempt at grade school humor I've been too old for that for well over 30 years now, how old are you? Around 60 isn't it? Seeeeesh!

Just when are we to expect your "formal claim"? Been 8 months now. remember the one you promised us all was going to be ready soon. Zavada privately promised his report 6 months ago (not 8) and said it was "going to take some time".

Still here, still waiting champ -- now about your responsibility, how's Rollie doing on his report, or are you gonna hide behind my grade school humor?

'Bill Miller' wrote:

So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again?

David, you are not attempting to tell us that Sherry should be faulted for offering an opinion by using the exact same film that Costella used to make his claims - ARE YOU???

dgh: of course, you think a first generation copy of the film was made privy to us? You lone nutters are terrified of that kind of occurence. Sherry has inside moves she can make, perhaps SHE can comment, or are you HER spokesperson (you do wear many hats) too?

PS Can anyone tell me the names of some of these scientist that Costella wrote about below???

“More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film."

email and ask Costella -- better yet, YOUfind a scientist or "blood spatter" analyst that'll confirm or deny it, for the record of course... hell, find a particle effects compositing specialist and ask if blood spray recreation was possible in the early 60's [whoops, or were frames removed]. Bring him/her in here, we'll chat it up....maybe Sherry will run your errrands for you!

David, I cannot find where in my reply that I was telling Len what to say? In fact, I was sarcastically supporting the ridiculous things you had said.

wasn't you I was addressing champ -- you're answering for him so, again, does Len need your permission to speak? Or, is this an overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN?

Bill Miller

Bill - Trying to have an intelligent discussion with Healy is normally a waste of time.

Len

Glad you snapped to there Len....

And you EXPECT one with Bowel Movement Bill?

BTW, as the the representative [to this forum] for Roland Zavada, and his new and improved report do you have any news? Been 8 months now... He's not still pissed at Harry Livingstone is he? Lurkers on this forum shouldn't have to pay for that...

'Bill Miller' wrote:

So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again?

David, you are not attempting to tell us that Sherry should be faulted for offering an opinion by using the exact same film that Costella used to make his claims - ARE YOU???

dgh: of course, you think a first generation copy of the film was made privy to us? You lone nutters are terrified of that kind of occurence. Sherry has inside moves she can make, perhaps SHE can comment, or are you HER spokesperson (you do wear many hats) too?

PS Can anyone tell me the names of some of these scientist that Costella wrote about below???

“More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film."

email and ask Costella -- better yet, YOUfind a scientist or "blood spatter" analyst that'll confirm or deny it, for the record of course... hell, find a particle effects compositing specialist and ask if blood spray recreation was possible in the early 60's [whoops, or were frames removed]. Bring him/her in here, we'll chat it up....maybe Sherry will run your errrands for you!

David, I cannot find where in my reply that I was telling Len what to say? In fact, I was sarcastically supporting the ridiculous things you had said.

wasn't you I was addressing champ -- you're answering for him so, again, does Len need your permission to speak? Or, is this an overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN?

Bill Miller

dgh: not necessary, Len. Find one expert or Physicist that blows his contentions out of the water, we'll go from there...

Yeh, Len .... you hear Healy - it's not necessary. It's only necessary when someone wants to be taken seriously and cares to know whether the work they claim to of done can be validated by their peers. Healy know this and because he understands what it means ... it is why he is forced to take the ridiculous position that he has chosen.

dgh: buy HOAX, Len....

Yes again, Len ... buy 'Hoax' and read it so you (like David Healy) will be able to say to this forum that you have seen no proof of alteration.

Bill Miller

my, does Len need your persission to speak? Or is this just your overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN?

The skill of a magician is in getting an audience to focus its attention where he wants it at a specific instant. And the success of magic lies in the ability to create illusions that have the appearance of reality.

David, you are a magician – getting everyone to focus on the messenger instead of the message. Because if they did focus on the message, the magic of Costella would be exposed as an illusion.

no Sherry, just a simple, straight forward media compositor, been doing that kind of magic for years. Next your going to tell us HOAX is required reading for your circle of associated... So looky here, this is Baghdad Bob Healy, Lady [compliments of Wee Willie *Bowel Movement Bill* - Miller] LMAO!

So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again? Talk about magic -- THAT my dear might make CSI-Las Vegas, NYC, Miami look twice. Right up there with 15 minute DNA analyses -- talk about SMOKE!

'Len Colby' wrote:

dgh: perhaps you can find a expert in optics and light that will support your contentions, after all if high school students can see the error of Costella's ways, certainly the USofA should be flooded with experts that will heed your call for confirmation?

David can you name "an expert in optics and light" who backs Costella's position? Despite Fetzer's and now your insistence that he qualifies nothing in his resume suggests he has any expertise in either field, no degrees, no papers, no courses taught etc.

dgh: not necessary, Len. Find one expert or Physicist that blows his contentions out of the water, we'll go from there...

Here for example is a list of his papers (none published in peer reviewed science journals, 3 were published in a journal concerned with teaching physics in the classroom another in a unreviewed online publication), which of these relate to optics or light.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...sics/index.html

It also occurred to me that I’ve never seen Costella himself claim such expertise. Can you provide evidence he ever made such a claim? Maybe to a posting on a forum or a webpage he wrote or you could post an e-mail he sent you or Fetzer.

dgh: buy HOAX, Len.... Then get in contact with the guys in the Gang, they're more than knowledgable of John Costella's qualifications... If you need their email addresses I'll provide them -- you might start with Dave Wimp.... Hope you enjoy the read.....

Oh, there's a 4 hour 2003 U.ofMinn DVD presentation by Costella if you'd like to buy it, drop me a note...

Before you make a fool out of yourself you might want to see it

What happened to Rollie Zavada and the new and improved Zavada Report? You know, the one Josiah said he provide "wide purchase" for, is he on the mend yet?

Len

[quote name='Peter Lemkin' date='Aug 21 2006, 07:04 AM' post='72725']

Paul, I was just reading your thread on Vietnam and was about to write a complimentary post there...then realized it was you who were the source of the skepticism on Weisberg and found this gloating post. Listen, you are obviously bright and able to think deductively and not follow the pack. Fine. I have been studying JFK for decades, read hundreds of books on the subject and ALL of Weisbergs twice. I also had a letter exchange with him and a few phone conversations. Add to that, many of those I have worked with have also had close research connections with him. I don't have his books with me at the moment or would look up the reference you mention, but the idea that he was pro-WC/CIA/FBI or anything of that flavor is just outlandish and incorrect. It has to be out of context or misconstrued. Perhaps he didn't fully realize that intrugue surrounding the film and its likely alteration - but even that is hard for me to believe. I don't know why you have this axe to grind with one of the fathers of the research on the case against the govenment..but you should withhold declaring 'victory' on this....it seems you are newer than many here to this field - not that one couldn't right off the bat find something new...I think this is a red herring that has no merit. Send in a friendly way. Reconsider it. Peter

Peter,

I like what I've seen of you, and your posts. I take, believe it or not, no pleasure in following the logic of the case, and rounding on someone whose work I initially thought irreproachable. But as you well understand, the CIA played - is playing - a deep and dark game; and we must meet that challenge.

Let me offer you a concrete example of why I turned against Weisberg:

"In one of those tricks of fate which later assume importance, this motorcade had no photographic car in the lead, no camera trained on the President from the front or otherwise close and with him in constant focus"

(Whitewash: The Report of the Warren Commission (NY: Dell, December 1966), p.30)

I must put it to you that the above is preposterous: It was no accident; and that Weisberg was too shrewd to have believed any such thing.

I wont labour the point, but I ask you, as you so politely asked me, to reconsider.

Best wishes,

Paul

How sure am I that Weisberg was not a secret CIA dupe or mole??? About 99.9999999999999999999999999%! What Jack White just said here is the truth and everyone was shocked when the Z-film began to be considered as tampered evidence. Now many accept that - I do! JFK research is a fun-house mirror-maze and can make one question reality but your suggestion that Weisberg was 'on the other side' and you have the 'clues' based on a few lines and his War background is about as believable as one suggesting that the whole assassintation was Jackie's idea to get a 'divorce' and that she even shot him herself - she was after all closest and we can scour her statements and actions for clues.... I am currently working on a book in part on the OSS and CIC crowd and while, yes, many of the post-War crowd of CIA et al. spooks and criminals came from their ranks, many others were good people of good morality who rolled-up their sleeves to help defeat fascism. I communicate with some still around and many are as upset that some of their bosses and ranks became what the former enemy was, as you and I. I believe Harold would have fit in that category. You can have you unique fantasy of him, but I think you will find precious few to join you on this. Peace.

I am not taking sides here but, that said, I think we can all agree that the Company inserted a good number of "researchers" into this case from day one. I never had the pleasure of meeing Weisberg and only know him by his work. (Which remains supurbe).

I think that detecting who is a spook and who is not is quite difficult as the work of the spooks contains much truth. Of course the paranoia in this community is also to be considered. Personality differences and infighting cause many to be called "disinformationists" when it's merely a difference in opinion that's afoot.

I apply a personal "rule", but for the purposes of this discussion that would put Weisberg in the spook mode, which I do not believe to be the case. Peter, Jack or anyone: Do you know what caused Weisberg to turn on Garrison?

Dawn

*********************************

Here's what Weisberg told me [on more than one occasion], first being, nearly 30 years ago:

"You don't have to go outside the WCR and the attendent volumes to prove conspiracy. However, when it comes to who was involved, THAT is another matter..."

Perhaps, he felt Garrison's character role in 'JFK'-the movie went a bit too far OUTSIDE THAT box. I recall Harold got a chance to view the script and created quite a stink...

Guard dog barked...among other things....

"Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL

bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings...."

Your "expert" Costella was a COMPLETE failure when he tried to make his claim at the off center shadow od Astronaut Armstrong was impossble. "Mr. Physics" was at a complete loss as to why it is perfectly NORMAL for such a shadow to exist in a single light (sun) situation. His vaulted physics degree did'nt serve him well in this instance, and all that was needed to deal with the question was a simple emperical test...taking a camea outside into the late afternoon sun and taking a picture.

So please, give the "where is the physist from the other side" bullxxxx a rest. Why because none is needed. These are simple PHOTOGRAPHY AND LIGHTING questions and the chump from down under is ill equipped to deal with these issues. Of course your side has White...oh wait...another ignorant ct dupe...or you...oh wait...clueless...wanna try Fetzer? LOL!

3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes?

If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...".

THAT surprised even ME...

So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed...

psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it!

Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished...

You have a VERY faulty memory bow wow....

No Elm street lighting problems? Surely you jest! Why finding "problems" with the lighting on Elm has become an epidemic due to the ignorant likes of White. Its been a real hoot puncturing this massive stupidity !

Costella HIMSELF verified the problems wiht his sign study...its impossible to take images from two different camera positions and alter them to make them appear to be from the same lens axis...yet his faulty study still stands both in print and on the web.

Then he makes the really stupid claim that verticals in a photograph cannot change angle in a photograph and then he applies this the the LEANING Stemmons sign! Physicists needed? No way!

None of this stuff is rocket science and poor old Costella, after being puffed up by Fetzer and the zombies at the cult forum, fancies himself an expert on photography. Sadly for the zombies he is no where near an expert, not even witn his self professed moniker as an ..."expert in the properties of light...hell he can't understand how a simple shadow works and last I checked a shadow is a "property of light"

Now lets put YOU in the spotlight bow wow... in YOUR professional opinion is this shadow possible? You need a Physicists to figure this one out or will a simple emperical test do the trick?

Mr. Light volunteers to do A SIMPLE EMPIRICAL TEST for us! I look forward to

it! It will be very educational to see how the sun casts shadows from multiple

directions. And I look forward to seeing where his shadow is in the UNCROPPED

FRAME when the sun is directly behind him. Wow...what a treat...an EMPIRICAL

TEST from Mr. Light himself. It should be very educational!

Jack

No Jack, I've already DONE (as have many others) the emperical tests and I KNOW the resutls. You on the other hand along with the the "Physicists" in question have made ignorant claims that this shadow pattern is impossible and that the shadow of Armstrong cannot be at the corner of the frame. And as usual you have done so WITH NO SUPPORTING documentation or evidence as usual. Thats the PROBLEM with ALL of both your and Costellas work...you JUST MAKE CRAP UP and claim it as fact.

So it YOUR turn do the testing and prove yourself correct. You do know how to use a camera...right?

SHow us your abilities as a photographer and highlight just how smart your "Physicists" really is.

We will all be waiting with GREAT interest.

Oh and just so EVERYONE at home can try the test as well let me give you directions:

Go out on any sunny day late in the afternoon when the sun is very low in the sky.

Set your camera lens to a moderate wide angle lens setting.

Stand so that the sun is directly at your back and aim your camera so that your shadow is in the center of the frame.

Try and keep your camera near level, not pointing down too much by down enough so that your shadow shows. ( this should not be a problem since the late day light will create a very long shadow of your body.)

Take a picture. This is how White and Costella say all photos must look when the sun is behind the photographer.

Now lets prove them both wrong.

Keeping your camera at the same level as the first photo, simply turn your head and the camera to the right until yor body shadow is at the left edge of the picture...take another picture.

Congratulations..you have just proven a "photo expert" and a "Physicist" wrong!

Example by another photographer...

http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html

Other examples of shadows:

http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html

http://www.clavius.org/shad30.html

http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html

How did we get from Bronson to the Moon...but I suspect that that was an intentional 'leap' to stop us from looking at Bronson. I suggest we all go back to Bronson and if people want to do the Moon do it on another thread or another website even better.

Try to keep up lemming. The moon image is simply being used to show the folly of HEalys suggestion that this wonder boy Costella photo arguments needs to be countered by another Physist for the counter argument to have any value, which is of course bunk.

Its also a wonderful chance to actuallly see Healy shuck and jive and avoid actually taking a stand.

Besides the discussion of the Bronson slide was and is useless.

ya dolt.... lets see the source image with a URL that works --

Take a stand on what you beef stick? I've shot more film and video for NASA than I suspect you have shot 4x5's in your entire career -- you need a different hobby champ, evidently you think I should give two xxxxs about moon shadows.

So tell us ALL; how does "moon shadows" move the JFK case to resolution... Another two-bit Lone Neuter diversion.... Jack ties you up in so many circles I'm surprised you can find NORTH

'Craig Lamson' wrote:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...1-40-5961HR.jpg[/url]

Oh and BTW I run my pc monitors at gamma 1.9

***********

bad link...

well, of course -- Bill Miller comes up with something original -- what-a-loon!

You know what's funny, David ... your responses are my best evidence.

Bill Miller

I don't know Bill -- looks like Rigby's gonna keep you busy for 'quite' a while -- if anything is left when your done, step on over here. Till then, enjoy the spotlight. Gentlemen!

Astonishing - not a counter-argument in sight, just an appeal for reinforcements!

I accept the complement!

Paul

Uh, Paul....don't flatter yourself. As I found out on another thread, you're really not worth arguing with.

When you got called for trying to have Zapruder's testimony both ways, you turned things really ugly.

To date, not one Forum member has agreed with your assessment of Weisberg, including people that met him, were helped by him, and spent time with him.

Keep on thinking you've got things all figured out. And Paul, the word is compliment.

You obviously have not read AARB testimony regarding the Zapruder film.... we let those things pass when it comes to neophytes and the Z-film. Truck on Mr. Hogan.....

Bill, do you have that footage of the Moorman photo that was shown on T.V?

The first time I see it, is approx 3:15 Dallas time on NBC. (Poor Quality)

Was it shown earlier?

chris

I believe that you are correct give or take a few moments, but that was CST in Dallas ... the assassination having just occurred less than three hours earlier. The important point is that while Moorman's photo was shown on NBC less than three hours later ... it was a pre-recorded interview that took place about 30 minutes or so after the shooting. That original photo filmed for TV while still in Moorman's possession shows Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal, while Jack continues to claim that Zapruder and SAitzman were inserted into all the assassination pictures and films.

And yes, the quality is not good for spotting badge man, but Costella was talkiing about the photo being altered during this large window of time he invented, which derrived from Jack's poorly researched claim that no one was ever on the pedestal during the shooting. The whole thing has been made into a joke IMO!

Bill Miller

sit down... unless you have a Ph.D in Physics or your introducing someone who does and can support a 'blood spatter' expert analysis based on a 8mm film thats been contested as fraud.

Sherry is a blood spatter expert, unlike you or Costella. I might also add that anyone can claim something to be a fraud, so your point is meaningless ... after all, you had already heard the allegations of fraud and still told this forum that you have not seen any evidence of alteration to date.

Not to mention no one, on either side with expertise in the matter has never seen the alleged in-camera Zapruder assassination film laced up in a projector and projected ANYWHERE.... Plus a moving crime scene where the blood spatter evidence was removed with 20 minutes of the fatal shot, a botched autopsy, faked and missing autopsy photos not to mention missing and altered X-Rays.... None of this crap would last 5 seconds in a court of law. Let Sherry clean up her own mess. You've got plenty of your own.....

More monkey spanking, David??? If you would actually read Sherry's findings ... you would see that she is telling you what the Zfilm shows and how it shows a frontal kill shot to the President.

Bill Miller

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

oh-wee, those darn photo operation guys at the NPIC [one, the chief color photo officer] said: it looks like 6-8 hits on Kennedy from possibly 3 different directions. Now that comes from a guy that says the Secret Service drop a Z-film off within 24 hours of the assassination [probably within 12 hours].

Not my doing, you can find the interviews and testimony in Doug Horne's [ARRB investigator] Appendix C, in Hoax. Great source for information, btw.....

Sorry, regardless of how proficient Sherry is, I don't need a blood spatter analysis based on [who knows what generation] 8mm Z-film [whose authenticity is questioned], a moving [limo] crime scene that was tampered with while parked at the emergency room enterance at Parkland hospital. Then we come to the Elm St., part of the crime scene...Hey, even CSI-Las Vegas can't pull that fat out of the fire

Now if she has a study/analysis of same utilizing NARA's in-camera Z-film original... TALK to me about "monkey spanking", Willie! LMAO

Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was...

As I recall - Costella and friends thought that Jean Hill was also in the street and we know Jean straighten that blunder of White's out when she went on Black Op Radio and said that she had gotten back into the grass before the first shot was ever fired ... Besides, when you told this forum that you had not seen any evidence of alteration - you had already read Lifton's 'Pig on a Leash' in the Hoax book.

Bill Miller

Me-oh-my, a comment about not verifying film alteration because I don't have access to evidence that being the Zapruder in-camera original? What kind of a moron you take me for, Your not THAT stupid are you? I'm beginning to think you live and die to say; "you had not seen any evidence of alteration" .... Really a weak Lone Nutter case if that's all you got.... perhaps the Tinkster should re-run Dealey Plaza film/photo boot camp? LMAO...

Sorry, I've listened to Black Op Radio four times, David Lifton, you know the guy who told you to get lost and John Costella, who won't waste his time with you, Rich DellaRosa who threw you off his forum, and Doug Horne who doesn't even know you exist...

but you can help out here... Who controls the Moorman 5 photo and if I wanted to interview Mary Moorman who do I have to call and how much will it cost me? Get back to me, maybe we can do lunch, hell, maybe I can put in a good word for you Black Op.... nah!

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his?

I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly.

Bill Miller

Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella.

Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was...

You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken?

what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us...

Come on bow wow..spell it out...do you believe the shadow is possible AND natural or not? And yes..one light..the sun. Is it possible or not. On the record davie, show some BALLS for a change....agree with the igorant phd from down under and bozo White or deal with the facts and tell us all just how wrong they have it....

Quite stalling and pony up...for once actually BE a man....

And btw, for the record...no problem with this shadow AT ALL, easily repeted right here on earth in direct sunlight and only direct sunlight....and the shadows ALL fall the same direction.....

post the picture, Dim-Bulb! I'll take a look when I get back to town...

some of us do remotes on the weekend, you know.....

The apollo image in question is posted above nutless....

gimme a NASA image control number Dim-Bulb -- do ya know what that is? I want the source image... Why are you guys so easy? While your at it, gimme your monitor gamma setting, I don't want you to confuse apples with oranges...

Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was...

As I recall - Costella and friends thought that Jean Hill was also in the street and we know Jean straighten that blunder of White's out when she went on Black Op Radio and said that she had gotten back into the grass before the first shot was ever fired ... Besides, when you told this forum that you had not seen any evidence of alteration - you had already read Lifton's 'Pig on a Leash' in the Hoax book.

Bill Miller

Me-oh-my, a comment about not verifying film alteration because I don't have access to evidence that being the Zapruder in-camera original? What kind of a moron you take me for, Your not THAT stupid are you? I'm beginning to think you live and die to say; "you had not seen any evidence of alteration" .... Really a weak Lone Nutter case if that's all you got.... perhaps the Tinkster should re-run Dealey Plaza film/photo boot camp? LMAO...

Sorry, I've listened to Black Op Radio four times, David Lifton, you know the guy who told you to get lost and John Costella, who won't waste his time with you, Rich DellaRosa who threw you off his forum, and Doug Horne who doesn't even know you exist...

but you can help out here... Who controls the Moorman 5 photo and if I wanted to interview Mary Moorman who do I have to call and how much will it cost me? Get back to me, maybe we can do lunch, hell, maybe I can put in a good word for you Black Op.... nah!

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his?

I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly.

Bill Miller

Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella.

Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was...

You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken?

what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us...

Come on bow wow..spell it out...do you believe the shadow is possible AND natural or not? And yes..one light..the sun. Is it possible or not. On the record davie, show some BALLS for a change....agree with the igorant phd from down under and bozo White or deal with the facts and tell us all just how wrong they have it....

Quite stalling and pony up...for once actually BE a man....

And btw, for the record...no problem with this shadow AT ALL, easily repeted right here on earth in direct sunlight and only direct sunlight....and the shadows ALL fall the same direction.....

post the picture, Dim-Bulb! I'll take a look when I get back to town...

some of us do remotes on the weekend, you know.....

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his?

I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly.

Bill Miller

Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella.

Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was...

You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken?

what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us...

dgh: We're still here Dear..... and your qualified expert in optics and film is.....? what took you so long, I expected you a few days ago!

David, are you forgetting about who's side your on ... you've already stated that you have not seen any proof of alteration, thus can we not assume that you read the contents of the book that shares your article - and because of your remarks ... you must not have agreed with the Ph.D. Costella's writings. By the way, that's the Ph.D. that wrote about this large time frame that could have been used to alter Moorman's Polaroid because the dumb-ass didn't bother to learn the subject matter first. Maybe you can start a thread on how a Ph.D. could write a piece on Moorman's photo being forged and not he known that it was filmed for TV not 30 minutes after the assassination? In other words ... what good is a Ph.D. if you do not have the facts straight.

Bill Miller

sit down... unless you have a Ph.D in Physics or your introducing someone who does and can support a 'blood spatter' expert analysis based on a 8mm film thats been contested as fraud. Not to mention no one, on either side with expertise in the matter has never seen the alleged in-camera Zapruder assassination film laced up in a projector and projected ANYWHERE.... Plus a moving crime scene where the blood spatter evidence was removed with 20 minutes of the fatal shot, a botched autopsy, faked and missing autopsy photos not to mention missing and altered X-Rays.... None of this crap would last 5 seconds in a court of law. Let Sherry clean up her own mess. You've got plenty of your own.....

'Sherry Gutierrez' wrote:

Work that asked to be taken seriously must be researched in depth to assure all facets of the matter in question are considered. When addressing an investigation you can not start with a pre-disposed idea (like the Zapruder film is altered) and search for supporting evidence. You must uncover and expose all information possible and then form conclusions based upon your findings.

dgh: Ah.... who started with pre-determined or pre-disposed ideas? Strike: ONE

If we know something to be in error are we to just ignore it? For years, this community sought experts in various fields to enter the research of the Kennedy assassination. But, if their findings are in opposition to long held, and vested theories - what shall we do? Find someone else to present themselves as an opposing expert, even if the person selected is not experienced or even well read in the subject at hand? That's what I think happened with John Costella; because the scientific basis for information contained at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html the JFK Assassination Film Hoax part 7 - The Blood Mistake is incorrect.

dgh: The community sought? baloney! We are now waiting for experts -- What you think happened to John Costella is of course your business, if you hold a Ph.D. in Physics dissect his presentation and give us the blood splatter expert analysis scientific eqivalent... If your side could produce a physicist I doubt you'd use him/her -- you have to much bandwidth to fill up

It is very misleading, and borderline unethical to insinuate scientific work when there has been none. Even a casual read through forensic topics for high school students on the internet would disprove most of the erroneous claims on this page. Moreover, there are numerous publications available that address this subject and collaborate my statements. Or, perhaps the writers could publish their credentials for making such wild claims. Since one necessary component for using scientific material as evidence is that the results of testing are consistent and reproducible; perhaps their study and results could be published so we can see how they come to conclusions hundreds of other bloodspatter experts would be at odds with.

dgh: perhaps you can find a expert in optics and light that will support your contentions, after all if high school students can see the error of Costella's ways, certainly the USofA should be flooded with experts that will heed your call for confirmation?

I encourage all researchers to thoroughly investigate this subject to determine the validity of their claims. And I encourage the writers and publishers of JFK Assassination Film Hoax: The Blood Mistake to reconsider the contents of that page. The excuse that Costella can not make corrections to his work is ridiculous, and if true – then just remove the page. Because if you allow that to go uncorrected, I’ll have to wonder what else might be incorrect that you knowingly allow to stand? In fact, can anything you publish be trusted?

dgh: someone with the approriate credentials drops by and takes Costella's presentation apart, we'll see... of course this hasn't happened yet...so why should he waste his time responding to you, Miller, the GANG and company -- that a bottomless pit -- you should know that by now..... and for the below absolutelty the same thing you posted what, a year ago? No confirming scientific expertise to support the contentions -- lots of bluster though....

Here are the claims made and my rebuttal to them:

JFK Assassination Film Hoax: Part 7 - The Blood Mistake

Hoax Claim:

“More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film.

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

In the years 1969 to 1971, Herbert L MacDonnell did research for the government under the Department of Justice. In 1971, the U.S. Department of Justice published his work as Flight Characteristics and Stain Patterns of Human Blood. Shortly after that publication, MacDonnell began teaching this investigative tool to law enforcement officers, prompting an interest in the characteristics of shed blood and how it related to crime scenes. Prior to this, most publications addressed only the most general of characteristics of spatter analysis. Therefore, even if the technology to fake the blood spatter in the Zapruder film existed, the knowledge of what it would look like and how fast it traveled did not.

Hoax Claim:

The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! “

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

Since 1983 I have been actively involved in the study and recreation of bloodstain pattern created as a result of high velocity impact. This type of analysis is founded in physics and mathematics and based on the study of research performed by many criminalists. Data collection by experts in this field is accomplished by shooting through a variety of samples of whole human blood at a series of distances and with a wide diversity of projectile calibers.

Videotape is routinely used to capture the results of the bullets passing through the bloody targets. The blood used in all cases is whole human blood. Currently videotape records approximately 30 frames per second. This speed videotape utilizes approximately 4-5 frames to capture forceful impact pattern when a low velocity, large caliber projectile with a high KE rate impacts a large volume of blood. This means a pattern is created in its entirety in 1/6 of a second; faster projectiles result in patterns being created in less than 1/6 of a second. The Zapruder film was recorded at approximately 18 frames per second. If blood is observed in 3 frames that would mean the pattern was created and dissipated in a time frame of 1/6th of a second - a time frame consistent with patterns created with a high velocity projectile. This timeframe for a pattern being created and dissipating is reproducible and consistent. A lead weight falling is being acted upon by gravity; blood expelled from a wound is forcefully expressed and moves much faster.

Hoax Claim:

The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314.

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

When filming, Zapruder’s camera captured 18.3 frames each second, but not everything that occurred was captured, since spatter can be expelled between frames and/or travel outside the area recorded before being captured by the camera. In frame 313 there is an object believed to be bone or tissue traveling from the President’s head in an upward and forward direction. Bone fragments and pieces of tissue are commonly found in forward spatter. This object is traveling fast enough for approximately 5 feet of movement to have been recorded in one frame equaling 1/18th of a second in duration. This is a good visual demonstration of the speed of forward spatter as it is leaving the exit wound at over 160 feet per second. At that speed, forward spatter could be created and move out of the area being photographed faster than the speed of the film could record it. The size of the forward spatter must also be considered. The majority less than of the droplets would have a diameter of 1 mm. If the detail

The velocity and volume of the blood leaving the impact site as backspatter has much less velocity than blood leaving exit wounds as forward spatter; and the backspatter droplets only travel about 3-4 feet from the source. When Bill Newman described the blood visible in front of the President’s face, it he said it was like a mist. Back spatter does not travel more than 3 or 4 feet and is often described as a multitude of minuscule blood droplets that resemble an atomized spray or mist.

Hoax Claim:

The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. But even if the blood could have, where would it have ended up? It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all:

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

In addition to this single frame of the Zapruder film, there are other sources available to determine if blood was present either within or outside the Limo. Consider the following statements documenting blood landing both within and outside the limo.

Nellie Connally; from Nellie Connally: That Day in Dallas by Robert R. Rees.

"I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot. My eyes saw bloody matter in tiny bits all over the car."

Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman, Special Agent, Secret Service beginning at 2H61; Agent Kellerman was in the right front seat of the Presidential limo.

Mr. Kellerman: Senator, between all the matter that was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over.

Senator Cooper: What was that?

Mr. Kellerman: Body matter; flesh.

Mr. Specter: When did you first notice the substance which you have described as body matter?

Mr. Kellerman: When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat.

Robert A. Frazier testimony, Feb 21st and 22nd 1969, Criminal District Court Parish of Orleans State of Louisiana State Of Louisiana Vs. Clay L. Shaw 198-059 1426 Section "C"

"We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area."

ABC Television station WFAA reporter Bill Lord

In an interview with Chaney stated that he was "riding on the right rear fender" of JFK's limo during the shooting, and that "the President was struck in the face" by the second shot. Lord ended the interview by telling the audience that "[Chaney] was so close his uniform was splattered with blood".

Officer William Joseph "B J" Martin Warren Commission Testimony

Mr. BALL: Did you notice any stains on your helmet?

Mr. MARTIN: Yes, sir; during the process of working traffic there, I noticed that there were blood stains on the windshield, on my motor, and then I pulled off my helmet and I noticed there were blood stains on the left side of my helmet.

Clint Hill 3/9/1964 Warren Commission Testimony of Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (H 2 132-44)

"There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car."

Why I am qualified to respond:

I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida; including US Federal District Court. I formerly headed the Forensic Investigative Unit for St. Charles Parish of the Louisiana Sheriff's Department and prior to that was second in command at the Lafayette Parish Metro Forensic Unit which served eight parishes. When I retired, I allowed my professional memberships expire. However, I was a member of the International Association for Identification and acquired the Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst certification. I have served on the International Association for Identification subcommittee for bloodstain pattern evidence, and have presented at international and state conferences for that organization. I was also a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction. I am recognized as a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis course instructor by the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the International Association for Identification; and taught that field of investigation to law enforcement agencies and at police academies for over 20 years. I have published 15 articles in peer reviewed journals, and given lectures at national and international levels.

Last time I ask for this to be corrected, I answered alot of questions with as much detail as possible, and as graciously as I could. Finally the post failed because the Costella supporters gave up. Since their opposing views are often rebutted with " show me your expert or shut up" attitude I'm not jumping throught the same hoops this time. Just make the corrections or pull the page.

dgh: We're still here Dear..... and your qualified expert in optics and film is.....? what took you so long, I expected you a few days ago!