David G. Healy

This IS adversarial. I wrote: Paul, your point is taken that in his WC testimony, Zapruder didn't mention the suspension of filming the motorcade, but both Trask and Wrone describe the motorcycles and lead cars were quite a bit in front of the President's Lincoln, and that when Zapruder realized this, he stopped filming after 7 seconds. Like Weisberg, I guess they just assumed this. So why the f___ are you asking me such rhetorical questions? Shortly after joining this Forum you and I had a go of it. Since then, I learned never to comment on anything you say. But since you saw fit to interject, I've made an exception. I don't like your style. I don't like your attitude. I don't like your methods. I don't think I like you. You type so much crap, I've quit trying to ascertain what is accurate and what is not. Your grammar sucks. It's not "Sitzman would of known." It's Sitzman would have known. It's not my style to point things like that out. You bring out the worst in me. That's why I vowed not to pay any attention to the stuff you post. Save it for Bill Miller, or someone else that is interested. Mr. Hogan in adversarial mode, tsk-tsk Rhetorical question? Did Wrone, Trask or Weisberg assume Zapruder stopped filming? Footnotes? Can you or anyone else point us to a cite "quoting" Zapruder halted Elm Street filming? This is not rocket science Mr. Hogan, a simple question. Getting your panties in a uproar is unproductive, if you don't know or simply can't respond, sit quietly, someone else will. As for my writing skills, I'll tell YOU what I tell the rest of the Lone Neuter's (their last vestiage is commenting on grammar) on this board: I hire writers, I make no claim being one. So stuff it in your ear Studley. Can't stand the heat, write a book....

nor is this adversarial -- The importance of Trask, Wrone and Weisberg(?) making a comment that Zapruder had a false start while filming? Was Zapruder quoted, saying same? Zapruder attest to: he stopped filming, began anew after spotting the limo on Elm Street? If so.... where, WC testimony, Shaw trial in NO, media interview, personal-private comments? He is after all, a guy on-the-record as "wanting to cooperate"... If he did stop for a few seconds I suspect Ms. Sitzman would of known...

'William Kelly' wrote: Regarding the Moorman Photo. I was shown an early - first or second copy of the Moorman photo by someone at Dealey Plaza during an anniversary observance. It was pointed out and explained to me that the first and second generation copies show more detail than other copies, and some of the details that fade are significant. Has anyone else studied this? BK ******** Bill, Seems to me Jack W was involved with the "Zippo" (?) version of the Moorman5 Polaroid. I believe that generation photo of Moorman was pretty close to the original 'Bill Miller' wrote Jack There can be no doubt IMO that you are talking about a reenactment film or you have been duped. Moorman's photograph, which was taken within 3.6/18ths of a second from the head shot, shows the limo's wheels to be moving, plus all the assassination films showing the head shot seem to support Mary's photo. Again, Mary's photo was filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination and within the next 2.5 hours it was then broadcast on a major news network. This means of course, that because of the authenticity of Moorman's photo ... any film showing a limo stopped at the time of the head shot must be a reenacted film and cannot possibly be the real event that took place on 11/22/63. Bill Miller ********** uh-uh-UH..... is that part of your, "There can be no doubt IMO"? You can prove the 3.6/18ths from the headshot, eh? If so, that IS new, you're now the only person in the world that claims the exact timing of the Moorman 5.

Peter, Somewhere in one of Vance Packard's books of the the late 1950s/early 1960s, he quotes the motto of the tally men: "If you can't convince 'em, confuse them." To put it another way, you first establish the contradictions, then multiply them. And why not - who was/is to stop them? Intelligence bureaucracies do things because they can, and do so with impunity. But to introduce a note of caution: Saying there was a shot from the front is no great threat to the conspirators. On the contrary, unqualified, and minus precision, it serves their purposes admirably. After all, the grassy knoll is their built-in fall-back. They led us to it. And they're more than happy for us to remain there, ad infinitum. again, right on point...

You give'em way too much power Peter. We want this dude Brandon -or- dudette Brandy to hang around for a while, we need a clear picture of, BRASS in the nose - LEAD me around by it, 2006-Lone Neuter thinking. He/She is at the head of the class... David, I want to assure you that the finest cryptologists at the CIA are working overtime to decipher what exactly it is you are trying to say. In fact, I send 99% of your posts directly to Langley, as they are all equally banal and confusing. Now that's gratitude for you, is that anyway to act toward those that are looking out for your best interests? We want you here.... Let's hope those spooky guys and gals, have better things to do... confusing, crypto? Doesn't the latter firm up the former? You inside the beltway wuzzes can be so silly.

The four dominant stands of the contemporary GOP embodied in one man: Sophistry, floristry, garbology, and chickenhawkery. Respect! LMAO ! Way to go, guy

You give'em way too much power Peter. We want this dude Brandon -or- dudette Brandy to hang around for a while, we need a clear picture of, BRASS in the nose - LEAD me around by it, 2006-Lone Neuter thinking. He/She is at the head of the class...

Hi, Cliff. I've taken the liberty of excerpting the quotes above from several of your messages, not to comment on the evidence at issue—since I believe the "medical evidence" is almost exclusively the game of the disinformationists for reasons set forth herein—but to comment on the games played on their selected playing fields. The boundaries of their playing fields are always marked by the edges of the mists of ambiguity. Hardly any greater ambiguity exists than the provenance and validity of the "medical evidence." It is a Klein bottle of "evidence," existing inside and outside itself with no entrance and no exit (and that can be taken in any way anyone wishes, literally or figuratively). Their playing fields are governed, in terms of time, only by infinity, and, in terms of goals, only by conflict: time never expires, conflicts are never resolved, scores cannot be made, arguments can be neither won nor lost. But the game can be won infinitely by the playing field owners, since the only goal anywhere on the field is the continuance of the conflict through any means, any tactic, without the slightest regard for any rules of engagement, debate, or decency. Anyone reckless enough to play their game on their own fields of ambiguity with the hope of any other possible outcome is doomed by stepping on the field. Their overriding and ruling rule is chaos, not order. Even if one should be clever or observant enough to make inroads of clarity on their foggy fields of ambiguity, the amorphous boundaries—like the time that governs play—are infinitely movable and infinitely expandable through the infinite accusation of fictional "arguments" never argued or proposed, just as you bemoan above. If you should be so astute as actually to take one tiny piece of their ground, 20,000 more acres of mist are created from nothing in an instant and added to the field stretched out before you. And what does it matter, anyway, once one has accepted and donned the hideous uniform/costume/frightmask they created for the "Conspiracy Theorist," a non-existent and entirely generalized "persona" that the disinformationists have so thoroughly discredited that to wear the garment is to lose the game. As long as they can make the game one of "CTs" versus them—in their own endless conspiracy of disinformation, a delicious irony—they have assured for themselves infinite conflict on their own fields of infinite ambiguity, and that is the only game they will play. Ashton Gray E X C E L L E N T

'Paul Rigby' wrote: Why did the conspirators offer the Z-film? An important subject, rarely addressed head on. Below, a preliminary sketch of an answer. I leave aside two other obvious motives, as trophy and training aid: Kennedy had to be killed in a public space to allay suspicion of an inside job. Yet it had to be an inside job to ensure its success. How to reconcile these conflicting imperatives? A false film, buttressed by a series of measures designed to render the location a pseudo- or controlled public space: 1) Location of crime scene at the end of the motorcade route, thus limiting potential number of independent witnesses; 2) Largely portable scene-of-crime, leaving little to examine, provoke reflection or, not unimportantly, clear-up; 3) Further limiting independent witness presence in the chosen public space by misdirection as to the precise motorcade route; 4) Minimisation of independent witness presence at key vantage points through guards at aforesaid key points; 5) Flooding of public space by intelligence assets, using pre-established business proprietaries as thoroughly plausible pretext for presence; 6) Misdirection of independent eyewitnesses (and subsequent enquirers) by use of both planted and/or manufactured witnesses; and rehearsed misdirection actions by motorcade figures designed to support the built-in fall back position (the grassy knoll); 7) Deliberate investigative failure to account for, and adduce the testimony of, all those present: inconvenient witnesses were marginalised, ignored, and/or replaced by more helpful material. The fake film showed only those witnesses the conspirators wanted us to see. The primary purpose of the film was to hide the true role of Kennedy’s own bodyguard. The second, to inject the required quota of ambiguity and paranoia into the case: the Z-film, in the version we are familiar with, is quintessentially the product of the counter-intelligence mind. The public understanding of the case would thus be shaped not by testimony, but by the false visual depiction. Of course, things didn’t go quite according to plan. But the essential task did. ************* Great talking points, Paul! Should be posted elsewhere...

Pat, Intense? Why do you see Shaneyfelt's testimony as "intense"? Slam dunk time isn't it? Healy

'Ashton Gray' wrote: [...] Having said that, I'm going to say something else that I think might offend some in said community, but I never can seem to get myself into the popularity-contest mold sufficiently to stop saying what I think: I think that no amount of photo or film analysis ever is going to answer the most fundamental and important questions. I stand completely by my oft-stated belief (maybe too oft-stated, but who's counting) that a meticulous and comprehensive timeline will answer more questions ultimately than any amount of time spent peering at inadequate, blurred, splotchy, low-resolution, degraded, and in some cases doctored images of subjects that often are far too small in the frame ever to be resolved to anything more than possibly an amorphous bit of film grain. [...] Ashton ********* Agreed, makes on wonder why, DP film/photo purists make such an effort defending the current historical phot/film record. I say the current thinking is: keep the CT film folks busy with non-sensical debate over photo minutae that no one is going to prove one way or another, in other words, D I V E R S I O N. The Bill Miller's of the world could spend the next 3 years refuting Harry Livingstones book about the Zapruder film. They won't even try, why? They'd have to address Harry's comments regarding RZavada's report and investigation... they won't go there!

Any news how Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding are progressing? I understand Roland is/was under the weather? Been what, 7 months? Thanks, DHealy

Stephen, Are you familiar with David *Blackburst* (no pun)? David *front-porch* Healy

David, have you, Jack, Fetzer, Lifton, or anyone else that has been involved in the alteration side of the coin ever bothered to ask anyone? Bill Miller Stephen, you and Peter mentioned a couple of things that would surely offer some answers to the authenticity concerning the Zapruder film and I am in disbelief that Jack or David Healy hasn't mentioned the following link for the answers to some of these questions .... www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm Bill Miller Appears SRoy does ENG, good to have other shooters around, especially those willing to post. So, what can Groden tell us? Did he see a un-split camera original/print being projected on 11/22-24/63? Has he EVER seen a *unsplit* Z-film projected... Appropriate to point out the Zavada report (regarding the Z-film) has been challenged by author Harry Livingston. Enough so, that Roland Zavada has seen fit to re-do his report, of which we await.

'Bill Miller' wrote [...] Then within hours Zapruder is having the film duplicated where it was also shown at the lab. No one who was present at the showing (including the lap personnel who projected the film) has ever said the film as we know it today didn't end where we see it each time we view it. Bill Miller were these folks ever asked?

____________ Ok then, can one tell this by examining the image? JG ___________________________________ I give the resident curmudgeon a mulligan; but, why couldn't there be some answer to the original question.? My God, I've seen the most tedious, hair-splitting-for-its-own-sake tedium analyzed to paralysis on these pages (hello, Clint Hill's 'shoe' and, oh yes, those ladies with the mysterious brown things, not to mention those blurry guys walking upwind somewhere and being given a sidelong glance by David MacNeill in the area where Gordon Arnold has yet to be seen - all of whom are black but look like Oswald or Ruby). Was the original question, as above, something offensive ("...is there a way to determine whether Mr. Z's camera was shut off as he panned to the right following the limo - and ending his filming right at the picket fence - or if the film was edited that way?")? C'mon, guys, we've waded through a lot. Can't ya gimme this one? Hasn't anyone thought about how that film ends JUST as the camera pans to the picket fence? I'm not asking for you to speculate, but merely to address whether it can be determined - chemically, mechanically or otherwise - if that film was cut or if the camera fortuitously was shut off at that precise, crucial and exquisitely coincidental moment. JG I can't tell you John..... What I can say is, if the Z-film ended up on a optical film printer after 11/25 the final frame in the Z-film as we see it today may have been selected... -or- the last frame is indeed as we see it today.... how is that for covering all the bases.?

I am finding this hard to buy. A film frame is a 2D image and if an object is filmed from two different angles, then I do not think that an optical printer is going to turn one image to match the filming angle of the other. Bill Miller Then don't buy it, ask a professional image film/video composer, a Hollywood optical effects film printing tech (if you can find one these day's) -- hell, ask Ray Fielding. IF a [pilot] film was shot from the same pedestal that Zapruder filmed from-within a minute or so of the killing, at 15-20% LESS than full zoom. or wider field of view - the filming "angle", lens fov [field-of-view] IS close enough. The dead giveaway in a bad comp is LIGHTING, even the inexperienced eye notices. The inexperienced eyes in this case may of been the WC. And yes, some film process cameras do 'rotate around the z* (axis) see Ray Fielding's book. Basic stuff!

I am finding this hard to buy. A film frame is a 2D image and if an object is filmed from two different angles, then I do not think that an optical printer is going to turn one image to match the filming angle of the other. Bill Miller Then don't buy it, ask a professional image film/video composer, a Hollywood optical effects film printing tech (if you can find one these day's) -- hell, ask Ray Fielding. IF a [pilot] film was shot from the same pedestal that Zapruder filmed from-within a minute or so of the killing, at 15-20% LESS than full zoom. or wider field of view - the filming "angle", lens fov [field-of-view] IS close enough. The dead giveaway in a bad comp is LIGHTING, even the inexperienced eye notices. And yes, some film process cameras do 'rotate around the z* (axis) see Ray Fielding's book. Basic stuff!

Here's a scenario....Not necessary for another camera (not impossible a second B&H414 camera may of been on the pedestal) in or around the pedestal... matching up *not so perfectly* is a optical printers problem, ask Ray Fielding, that's what Roland has him there for... Auto-zoom? The B&H414 zoom was manual, don't think any cameras of the day were "auto-zoom" you're a little early there.... so for a scenario... First, Zapruder's camera was on FULL zoom, the false start in the Z-film (as we know it today) at Z132-133 is interesting to say the least. Was it possible for someone to make a double 8mm filming pass (from Zapruder's pedestal) down Elm Street after the intial escort car/motorcyle passed down Elm Street? A *clean-no vehicle* left to right pan down Elm Street to the railroad overcrossing, no vehicle traffic. Just a nice smooth pan ... SOME think so... Sound familiar? The "pilot" film scenario? Does the math work out, was there enough film and wind in Zapruder's camera? Probably. No need for a rewind either... Clean Elm Street 'pan' pass takes about 7-8 seconds of film at 16fps. After the film is split, cut the clean Elm Street pan from the Z-film in-camera original, after the 'false' start portion [frames to 132] a simple hot splice joining 132 with 133 where Kennedy's limo first appears, the rest is history. Well, till serious changes are needed/required and you have 2 months+ to determine that. Whatever immediate frames you want for LIFE and other pub's, use 'em.

There certainly was a guy in Dallas that looked a lot like AZapruder, might of had something to do with the Kennedy, wanted for Treason nonsense. He and his picture was under discussion a few months back on one of the JFK boards or newsgroups. Can't remember which. This is the first picture I've seen of anyone that looked like Zapruder in Dealey Plaza, Nov '63. If thats the case, I''m not surprised he appeared in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, plenty of other look-alike characters made the scene that day.... David, I can go read Zapruder's testimony for you, but why should I when you are surely capable of reading it yourself. And who would think that out of the hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination that there would be more than one older balding man. Now that is truly suspicious! I am thinking that if one needs a side by side comparison to see some of the obvious differences between the two balding men ..... that holding the camera originals in your hands will be of no help. BTW, if the balding men look alike, then the mystery woman must be Amelia Earhart. Bill Miller I was thinking along the lines of the Trask photo [YOU spoke of in this thread. You know, the one of Zapruder in the alcove immediately after the assassination. See if your comparison holds UP Take a walk on the wild side, I see James Gordon floating around -- he'll approve.

much, MUCH bigger...

Largest response, flinch? An unsuspecting, amateur motion picture camerman? Afraid of heights, wearing glasses, had to be talked into filming the event, by a woman (Sitzman) he doesn't even name in his WC testimony, rounds going off, echos everywhere, then the presidents head exploding... That's IT, a tiny flinch? Did the guy have military experience, was he a marksman, use to hearing rounds fired. Plus, he's crying and or crying out while he continues his filming trek down Elm Street? His response to the gunshots are negligible, hardly a blip.... that B&H414 camera at full zoom, panning left to right would need only 3-4 inches of upward/downward or sideways camera movement off-center for the liomo to disappear from the frame.... Zapruder did better than some pro combat photog's I know. When they saw the Z-film, understood who took it, they were amazed [two of the four don't believe it]. Well! It is somewhat difficult to accept that an individual, who is somewhat balancing on a pedastal to the extent that he requires someone to hold him, can/does thereafter pan a camera across an area which has a downhill slope and in which a vehicle is travelling on this downhill slope, yet the camera is being held and "panned" in such a position as to indicate that the vehicle is actually travelling on an uphill slope, and, during this "panning & filming", hold the camera so completely steady as to maintain the bottom edge of the film exposure in direct and level alignment with the top edge of the car doors. (Z320 through Z330) Not to even mention the other virtually perfect horizontal alignment with the car. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The courts regularly accept as an established fact that anything which appears to occurs, yet is for all known human endeavor physically impossible, as being evidence of some form of human tampering. You are clearly on the right track now David. Tom Hi Tom, Fascinating camerman this Zapruder guy. Never gave the**downhill** slope reality a **uphill** slope appearence a bit of consideration. Think the only way you could accomplish that uphill look (of a downhill reality) would be; a north of Elm St. 'canted' camera *physically* moving parallel with the vehicle. We know that didn't happen. Back to reframing the Elm Street sequence?

'Bill Miller' wrote: David, let me ask you a question ... Was Zapruder asked by the Commission if he went into the shelter? It seems to me that for many of these assassination witnesses to have said specific details that they would have had to of been asked the specific questions. As has been posted many times now - Trask's has a good lightened print of Art Rickerby's photo showing Abe's face quite well as he is standing in the shelter with Sitzman and the Hesters. Of course we don't have the camera original of Rickerby's photo so to prove it wasn't altered to look like Zapruder was inside the shelter, so we'll just say that the photographical record as it is ... supports by earlier statement. dgh: its okay to say, you don't know if the commission asked Zapruder that question. Did ANYONE ask Zapruder the question? There's a guy who looks strangely like Zapruder, chatting it up in Dealey Plaza immediately after the assassination, within 30 yeards of the "shelter". Pretty sure we can ID THIS guy, though...Are you sure thats Zapruder in the Ricklerby photo? As far as the guy in the earlier photo, unless Zapruder had gotten a haircut before giving his filmed interview - they are not the same person. The sides of Zapruder's head was bald above the ears to the top of his head and all the way back to the rear portion of the skull. The man in the photo as seen in profile shows thick hair above the ears all the way to the top of his head. dgh: lets see them side-by-side in this thread. Let the lurkers make up their minds Bill Miller

Comparing the 6 Day War with hit and flee or self detonating terrorists may make good anti-US blogs and publication headlines, it's fools folly comparing them militarily... Apples to Oranges, unless of course you become part of the body count ... Iran may have overstepped its bounds this time...

'Bill Miller' wrote below: Curious, is there WC testimony to support he; "...went into the shelter where..." ?