David G. Healy

Don't drag me into this you condescending twerp.

Sorry, BS, but both of you have become known for the same style of posting, just on opposite ends of the scale ... just go back and read the threads.

Bill Miller

Oh-my! Now, back to that 300', maybe there's a in-line repeater amp right beside the 6th Floor Museum 365/24/7 camera - get that data back to irrigation headquarters - come to think of it, why rain sensors at ALL, the 6th floor camera rotates through the entire Plaza doesn't it? You can see when its rains, right?

Quite a few bootleg copies were created during the New Orleans Garrison-Shaw trial. Additional copies of the Z-film were reproduced in NYC, for the FBI. In 2000 Roland Zavada made a presentation to the NYC branch of SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture Television Engineers) Present with him was Everett Hall who, in 1963, was president of Cine Magnetics, NYC. Hall commented during the 2000 SMPTE conference; his firm in 1963 made 16mm copies (they had to adapt a film printer for the job, same a Moe Weitzman firm had to do) of the Zapruder film. As for 8mm copies, who knows... It should be noted that Cine Magnetics became one of the worldwide industry leaders in providing 8mm SOF versions of commercial released Hollywood feature-films amongst other places. The film industry terminology: IN-flight films, provided to/for every commercial airline.

A summary [link] of the SMPTE conference: Film Forensics and the Zapruder Film, hosted by Roalnd Zavada is located below

http://www.mte.com/nysmpte/meetings/sum0004.htm

any further questions, Bill can help you - he's the expert!

DHealy

Thanks for citing some actual data pertaining to the subject ... I hope that you not suffer any ill-side effects as a result of this.

Bill Miller

All discussed upteen times -- SMPTE, I suspect some of this may be escaping you...?

hell, you were the one that told ME, Gary emailed you responses that went to others, why would this one be any different?

Does this mean your through with DP rainsensor fun? I was just warming to the subject

Gary does forward me responses to Zapruder film information that he is sharing with others, but not always, nor have I said Gary always does this. As far as the rain sensor thread ... I am sure that you can think up more trolling responses faster than most people can research, but knowledge is the key to warming up to any topic and you have not shown that you hav any particular knowledge about the irrigation system in Dealey Plaza.

Bill Miller

I'd say knowledgable enough with authorative posts and links, enough to keep you running all over the place. 300 feet from the lawn sensors hmm, that close to Gary's desk? Test 1-2-3, Test 1-2-3, hello TEST

Pristine Z-film images floating around from the ABC documentary, and they're from a videotape, Hi-Def or 601 SD or DigiBeta? 24P, 30i, 60i -- absolutely amazing -- frankly, not sure I believe that! Did Monaco do a NARA 8mm film restoration? Or did they just create a film to tape dupe cleaning up the frames along the way -- they're to good, they'd demand use of the original, even if its a 35mm slide of each frame from the extant film at NARA.... more questions as usual!

I said this before ... Trask's details in his book how one can get a copy of the Zfilm from NARA. If one is willing to pay for the copy to be made, then the National Archive will make it obtainable. The purpose for how it will be used (commercial or otherwise) is sure to make a difference on how much one has to pay for the film copy.

About the restoration part of your question ... Monaco was willing to restore the film through some new techniques, but NARA had concerns as to whether one should risk damaging the camera original film. In short - they didn't want another incident on their hands as like what happened with the Dillard negative and how it was damaged. After careful consideration it was decided to not risk destroying a national treasure like Zapruder's film.

Bill Miller

you're not telling me the Zapruder film footage we saw in the ABC documentary (and the DVD of same documentary) came from the extant film that was used in the MPI debacle are you?

If it wasn't that version, what Z-film version DID ABC and Myers use? It's all right to say you don't know?

btw, over the last 25 years I've purchased through NARA *approved* vendors over 100K worth of search time and archival films for broadcast

** reference DMyers - Zapruder film and Monaco Film Labs, SF, CA.... email - July 27th 2006**

David,

I understand there is something on your mind.

Bill Miller calls or emails questions to me, as do other researchers,

about the Kennedy assassination. When someone asks, I always try to

answer.

Here are the answers to your specific questions:

"evidence pertaining to his work...." ? ? ? Eidence of Dale's WORK,

wtf?

Let me spell this out for you, clearly. 'I expect no direct response

from the 6th Floor Museum (Gary Mack), nor DMyers'.

having said THAT, was permission granted and usage fees paid to the

Zapruder trust, for the inclusion of Z-film segments in the ABC

documentary that included DMyers DP/Elm St. animation? The 6th Floor Museum knows

such things, correct?

Gary Mack: ABC News licensed the Zapruder film for the Peter Jennings

special from The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. The Zapruder

family severed all connections with the Z film when it donated the film's

copyright to the Museum on December 30, 1999. Dale Myers had nothing to

do with licensing the film for the program.

1) was the Z-film in-camera original (housed at NARA) used for the new

and improved version done by Monaco? (Excellent, no P R I S T I N E

quality by-the-way -- kinda makes you wonder what the in-camera original

actually looks like.

Gary Mack: The ABC special used a video tape of the National Archives'

preservation film copy of the 8mm camera original Zapruder footage.

2) Did Myers pay a Z-film usage fee, or did ABC pick up that tab?

Gary Mack: ABC News, not Dale Myers, licensed the Z film for its

documentary from the Museum. I have no knowledge of Dale's arrangements, if

any, with ABC News.

3) Did DMyers use Monaco's, newly created Z-film digital

representations of the frames (for his TOASTER/Lightwave animation), if so, what

digital image file format, frame dimension and size?

Gary Mack: I have no knowledge of what source material Dale used for

his animation.

Gary Mack

Curator

The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza

411 Elm St Suite 120

Dallas TX 75202-3308

(214) 747-6660, ext 6693

gmack@jfk.org

www.jfk.org

Gary speaks through you Bill, you're the defacto *internet board* voice

for the 6th floor when it comes to the films and photos under their

care -- If you Bill can't get this info [or won't].....

Gary, if you will, email me the answers please, I'll post them to this

thread

David Healy

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

Pristine Z-film images floating around from the ABC documentary, and they're from a videotape, Hi-Def or 601 SD or DigiBeta? 24P, 30i, 60i -- absolutely amazing -- frankly, not sure I believe that! Did Monaco do a NARA 8mm film restoration? Or did they just create a film to tape dupe cleaning up the frames along the way -- they're to good, they'd demand use of the original, even if its a 35mm slide of each frame from the extant film at NARA.... more questions as usual!

dgh:By gosh-bu golly, Gary Mack did send me some information. Why not try shortening your sentences, reads better -- So, Gary cc's you his responses to me.... LOL, what thread should I post it to? Better yet, why don't you post it -- I've been waiting for you to bring this up!

David, I have asked you several times to post Mack's information if you had gotten it by now. If Gary has sent it to you, then open it and look to see if he "CC'd" it to me or not. Why you choose to spank your monkey instead of just getting to the point is rather sickening and nothing more than what you complain about BS doing. As far as where to post it ... if you have recieved it, then why not post it to the thread that you were trolling in when you asked the questions that you want answered. My memory tells me that it was the thread where we were discussing NARA's having Monaco doing some work for them and whether or not that work was used by Dale Myers.

Bill Miller

hell, you were the one that told ME, Gary emailed you responses that went to others, why would this one be any different?

Monaco - that's right ,I'm one of their clients, now I remember... now what did I do with that thread?

Does this mean your through with DP rainsensor fun? I was just warming to the subject

'Mark Valenti' wrote:

[...]

But there's a line that the Paranoid Postulaters cross - repeatedly - with no regard for the damage they do to the serious researchers who've nobly stood up against the Powers That Be for decades.

When they're proven wrong, they rarely if ever acknowledge it. They just keep coming up with more half-baked theories. And their acolytes are just as bad. They parrot, they echo, they cheerlead and keep the fires burning. It's an inbred, unhealthy circle.

Dick Russell, Mary Ferrel, Waldron, North - and many more - they are heroes. When they are lumped into the CT category along with the deluded, all research suffers. That is why I try to draw a clear distinction.

MV

sounds like a paranoid in-bred postulator to me... but don't let that distract you, we're hoping for something from you, we've waited 40+ years...

dgh: makes no difference if I understand their work, Physicists do what Physicists do,

It appears that they insist on not being thorough so people like yourself who cannot understand what is said can xxxxx forums and speak out of both sides of their mouth. The Indians here in British Columbia call it 'talking with a forked tongue'.

dgh: as JCostella said a few years ago, he worked with the WCR supporters, till he found their work flawed. JCostella's work has been challenged by a few incompetent, fly-by-night, wannabe, fulltime Lone Nutter WCR supporters, the very guys you're in bed with - deal with it!

Surely you are not suggesting that meeting flawed WCR supporters work should be done by rebutting them with flawed CT's work. Again, you have seen Costella's work and have said that you have seen no proof of alteration. So if your position is that you do not understand or have a need to understand Costella's work, then how can you defend it, unless playing the role of the forum provacateur is your objective.

It appears you suffer from ADD syndrome, you're changing the subject, AGAIN -- hence, this thread title ".... rainsensors"

Yes, and it was you who brought up Costella's thoroughness in post #5. Then you mentioned Costella being a phyicist as if that means something. If that is all you have in support of Costella's remarks concerning alteration, then his past history of thoroughness should be examined to see how it applies to his thinking on this matter.

By the way, it seems that you have time to spend away from work to xxxxx the forums, but no time to post that reply that Gary Mack was going to send you ... why is that? Did Gary not send you the information that you were seeking or is it that he did send it to you, but it wasn't something that you no longer wanted to share with your fellow forum members?

Bill Miller

dgh:By gosh-bu golly, Gary Mack did send me some information. Why not try shortening your sentences, reads better -- So, Gary cc's you his responses to me.... LOL, what thread should I post it to? Better yet, why don't you post it -- I've been waiting for you to bring this up!

As my old intenet nemisis (Steve 'evidently he graduated from Marquette University' Keating ) use say; you're a HOOT!

'Tom Kutzer' wrote:

This may be a bit convoluted, but what isn't when it comes to JFK/Dallas.

A good friend of mine from NYC who has been in the projection/editing biz since the early '60's recently advised me that he has a copy of the Zap film that he's had since '67 or so...buried in his warehouse....you can imagine my interest...so naturally, I asked him how he got it....he said to the best of his recollection, he got it from R.Greenberg, a NYC editing firm of some repute...a quick google on R.Greenberg brought up a 2-D graphics firm that works in the motion picture biz...but only since '77.....hmmmmm, eh?....

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

Quite a few bootleg copies were created during the New Orleans Garrison-Shaw trial. Additional copies of the Z-film were reproduced in NYC, for the FBI. In 2000 Roland Zavada made a presentation to the NYC branch of SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture Television Engineers) Present with him was Everett Hall who, in 1963, was president of Cine Magnetics, NYC. Hall commented during the 2000 SMPTE conference; his firm in 1963 made 16mm copies (they had to adapt a film printer for the job, same a Moe Weitzman firm had to do) of the Zapruder film. As for 8mm copies, who knows... It should be noted that Cine Magnetics became one of the worldwide industry leaders in providing 8mm SOF versions of commercial released Hollywood feature-films amongst other places. The film industry terminology: IN-flight films, provided to/for every commercial airline.

A summary [link] of the SMPTE conference: Film Forensics and the Zapruder Film, hosted by Roalnd Zavada is located below

http://www.mte.com/nysmpte/meetings/sum0004.htm

any further questions, Bill can help you - he's the expert!

DHealy

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

3 questions, if you will...

1. anyone heard of this company?

2. why would they have a Zap copy?

3. is it worth my time to go through what amounts to a medium size warehouse of tape stock to find it?

my friend doesn't really care about all the assassination stuff....he's just a tapehound with lots of cool tape and film, mostly rock-n-roll boots from the '60's and early '70's...

basically told me if I can find it, I can have it.

any one that can comment or add some info before I spend what could amount to days going through boxes of tape?

'Bill Miller' begged on:

xxxxx? LMAO... come on you silly guy, the following has been on the internet for a few years, surely you read the contributors rebuttal to the Gang's nonesense didn't you? If not (it appears that way) you really should educate yourself, become a functioning xxxxx at least... maybe 'Barb the JUNK' would care to comment what with you being you uninformed???

The laws of physics have been on the Internet even longer, but that doesn't mean that you understand them. Your attempt to divert away from my calling you on your 'trolling' will not work. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. You cite Costella's alteration views as if he is reliable, but you, yourself have said that to date you have seen no proof of alteration. This means that either you do not understand what Costella says or you do understand it, but do not agree with him ... which ever choice you pick is fine with me for my point has been made.

dgh: makes no difference if I understand their work, Physicists do what Physicists do, the very type of scientist you Lone Nutter guy's apparently can't find, ANYWHERE! Why is that? -- you guys found John Costella prior to him working with the Z-film alteration research camp, some of those folks not sure the film was altered, including me. If it takes so little to disprove John Costella-Ph.D.-Physicist -- FIND one and do IT?

Here is just one example of what Costella has said that shows that he is not as throrough as you make him out to be ...

dgh: as JCostella said a few years ago, he worked with the WCR supporters, till he found their work flawed. JCostella's work has been challenged by a few incompetent, fly-by-night, wannabe, fulltime Lone Nutter WCR supporters, the very guys you're in bed with - deal with it!

It appears you suffer from ADD syndrome, you're changing the subject, AGAIN -- hence, this thread title ".... rainsensors" Start another thread if you have to run from this one... so, have you asked the "Junk lady" for a rainsensor comment yet?

As far as below -- that's IT? ? ? LMAO

"In what is in my opinion the most important Moorman research carried out to date, Jack demonstrates why the region of the Zapruder pedestal in the Moorman is almost certainly altered or fabricated: “Zapruder” and “Sitzman” are indistinct, despite being in bright sunlight; their depiction in the other films and photographs of the assassination is inconsistent; and the fact that there are “windows” of the pergola structure behind Zapruder that are missing, which indicates that whatever or whomever was perched on that pedestal was edited out, and replaced by indistinct figures in such a way that cropped versions of the Moorman published in the days following the assassination would not be invalidated—Zapruder literally “melts into the stonework” in a way that would be impossible for a real person standing in bright sunlight on that pedestal."

The "thorough" Costella didn't bother looking at the Moorman photo that was filmed and displayed on NBC within hours of the assassination. As I have said many times before, Moorman's photo was filmed not 30 minutes following the shooting and her image does not show the colonnade windows Costella is talking about. The reason it doesn't show those windows is because the part of Zapruder's clothing that is lightened by sunlight is blending in with the colonnade behind him. This is what happens when dealing with limited color tones on B&W images. Jack and Costella only see the shaded part of Zapruder's clothing as his total outline and because they didn't either find out about Mary's photo being filmed right after the assassination or knew about it and just didn't think to check it for these alleged missing windows, they have shown their lack of "thoroughness". There is no way around this blunder, David and you can copy and paste links until the cows come home, but it does not validate the content that you are tring to sell. I had assumed that after knowing about these claims, that when you said that you had 'not seen any signs of alteration' that this meant that you understood the critiques being made about Costella and White's observations, but when you post links that are offered as proof of Costella's accuracy and thoroughness, then you are only contradicting yourself, which doesn't help White or Costella in any shape - way - or form. One would think that when an instant photo is filmed while still being in Moorman's possession and that photo DOES NOT show the colonnade windows ... that a rational and sensible person would understand that the reason for the missing windows is something other than the photograph being altered, but I guess that isn't important to a 'phyicist' like Costella or to those who try and sell him as being thorough.

Bill Miller

c'mon Billy, gott'a go to work, can't wait any longer -- here's the link for the above:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel.../costella1.html

dgh: oh-my gosh, the lone Nutter's found a physicist foolish enough to challenge Dr. John Costella, I missed that, who is it and is his/her specialty optics? You clowns might get a book deal after all...

David, you have to be the biggest troller of forums I have ever witnessed. I have yet to see you actually explain why one position is preferred over the other. The best I have seen you do is place a link in your reponse which doesn't tell anyone if you even have an understanding as to what you are saying or why you are saying it. Instead of citing facts, you attempt to promote a position by way of propaganda in their place. Your "physicist" is the same guy who at first supported Jack by saying that Moorman was standing in the street when she took her number five Polaroid. The physicist not only failed to see Moorman's camera looking over the top of the cycles windshields, but he didn't even attempt to find out how tall one opf those sysles stood from the ground to the top of its shield. (So much more thoroghness!) So just being a physicist doesn't mean a hell of a lot when you make such errors. One person in this thread has said that he has experience with such irrigation systems and while not having been in Texas, he has seen such techniques as those used in Dealey Plaza used in another state. Costella didn't even offer to tell the reader whether or not he bothered to find out if these irrigation methods were used in other parts of the country that by the way would be unrelated to Dealey Plaza or JFK's assassination. But as long as he has a 'Baghdad Bob' like yourself who is willing to say one thing even if the record says something else, then that must be all that counts to a troller.

Bill Miller

xxxxx? LMAO... come on you silly guy, the following has been on the internet for a few years, surely you read the contributors rebuttal to the Gang's nonesense didn't you? If not (it appears that way) you really should educate yourself, become a functioning xxxxx at least... maybe 'Barb the JUNK' would care to comment what with you being you uninformed???

<quote on>

Appendix: Strange experiences en route to Duluth (15 pages)

In this Appendix I provide what I hope to be an entertaining account for my experiences when visiting Dealey Plaza and in travelling to Duluth, Minnesota, for the Zapruder Film Symposium in May 2003. Included are a variety of eyebrow-raising experiences, individually humorous and curious, but collectively providing food for thought for anyone who has not lived the experience of being a known (feared?) JFK researcher first-hand. To fully appreciate this Appendix, one must read it in the context of the rest of the book, in particular David Lifton’s chapter about the shady characters and dealings that are rife in assassination research, and Jim Fetzer’s overviews of the curious “conversions” of Gary Mack and Josiah Thompson. Included amongst the experiences are: “rain sensors” that are hidden in such a way that they cannot collect rain, and separated by only fifteen yards (so that they can detect if it’s raining on one side of Main Street but not the other)—but whose symmetrical layout makes much more sense for audio surveillance purposes; “tourists” who acted remarkably like government agents; an “adjustable lamp pole”, propped up by about an inch on all sides by small washers, whose angle could be adjusted at will, overnight, simply by lifting the pole and moving a few of the washers, that could be used to discredit research investigating angles of objects (as mine has); another “tourist” following us to Minnesota and around the airport; my luggage having been gone through during a seven-hour wait at Minneapolis–St. Paul airport, with the “coincidental” results being the destruction of my electric shaver, holes being “clawed” in my shirts, and the memory card of a digital camera being destroyed, all being discovered on the morning I was to make my presentation; and the American-accented substitute teacher taking my place in Melbourne who had apparently lived in Australia for seventeen years, but couldn’t understand Australian accents, didn’t know who the Prime Minister of Australia was, and spent the entire four hours he remained in the job (before claiming he had found full-time work elsewhere) searching through the drawers of my desk in my classroom. Of course, none of these amusing events prove anything at all about the Zapruder film. Some intuitively-challenged researchers have offered the deadpan response, “Oh, that’s an interesting set of coincidences,” to which one feels like Holmes dealing with Watson on one of his particularly dull days. I leave this Appendix to the individual reader to form their own opinions; and all but those with an obvious agenda to pursue tend to arrive, not remarkably, at roughly the same conclusions. Read it yourself, and tell me what you think. Really! As it has no bearing on the authenticity of the Zapruder film, I really don’t mind where it takes you. (Consider it my contribution to the entertainment value of the book!)

The Gang’s response:

Given the importance of the rest of the book, it is remarkable that The Gang has yet another “specialist” whose only contribution is to argue about observations that have no bearing at all on the thesis of the book, namely, that the Zapruder film is a hoax. Barb Junkkarinen (known generally as “Junk”—I now know why) provides us a short section of scientific indignation and studious research on a burning issue in JFK assassination research: Wireless RainSensors.

Junk mounts her soapbox by complaining that someone with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, an Honours degree in Engineering, an Honours degree in Science, and a teaching diploma should always investigate—scientifically, and until they drop of exhaustion—any object of scientific or engineering interest that is put before them. I guess she thinks that scientists and engineers are like Pavlov’s dogs: show us something technical, and we start salivating.

Junk’s good mate, Stu Wexler, has the same belief. He spent months of my time in 2001, trying to draw me in on research designed to debunk Ken Rahn’s absurd neutron activation analysis (NAA) claims. I spent some time on the issue, but told Stu very quickly that Rahn’s statistical arguments were hilarious. If Ken Rahn were counting sheep, he’d conclude that half of them were actually dogs, because he had a sheepdog rounding them up in one paddock. Mathematically speaking, that’s how ridiculous his claims were.

Unfortunately, Stewart Galanor, who also earns his keep these days teaching high school mathematics, did get sucked into this furphy. Galanor’s a good man, and it saddened me to learn that his talents had been absorbed by this sort of rubbish.

Anyway, I digress. Back to Wexler’s mate, Junk. She apparently believes that I should spend all of my energies investigating and researching these RainSensors. She is indignant that I “determined, to my satisfaction” what was going on in Dealey Plaza, too rapidly for her comprehension. She insists that it is a field of research that warrants a major investment of time and energy:

Did Costella do any research into the irrigation system installed in Dealey Plaza? He mentions none in his chapter, and failed to respond when I asked him this very question on alt.assassination.jfk.

Junk is being very cute here. A serious back-down, no less! What actually happened is that I broke with my own rule (see the introduction to my chapter) of not posting to the public newsgroups, and responded to a comment about The Great Zapruder Film Hoax on alt.assassination.jfk. What Junk fails to tell you is that this newsgroup is “moderated”, which means that it is censored by the man who “owns” it, John McAdams. There is more than enough on the Internet to tell you about McAdams and his modus operandi, if you are interested in the slimier side of assassination research.

My first posting to McAdamsLand on this topic appeared within a normal time frame, and Junk responded. After that, my postings seemed to disappear into a black hole—only to reappear many days later, attached to Junk threads, with second-hand responses from other members of The Gang.

I remembered why I stopped posting to McAdamsLand in the first place, and returned to that policy. Obviously Junk posted a challenge in some of her namesake, that I did not answer.

But let us put that missed opportunity to one side. Junk proceeds to tell us what she has learned from her Google search researches.

The devices have a range of 300 feet to the receiver, which must be housed indoors. Hang on a minute! Is Junk trying to attack me, or agree with me? Where are these “indoor” receivers in Dealey Plaza? In the former Texas School Book Despository? If the actual irrigation is to occur in the grassy area between Elm and Main, and Main and Commerce, how could a receiver indoors be of any help at all? And if the range is 300 feet, why was there a need for two of them within 50 feet of each other?

Junk then asks whether I tested the devices for audio transmission on an RF link. Yes, Barb, I pulled an all-band RF receiver out of my backside and tested the devices. Of course, if Junk were the electronics engineer she scolds me for being, she’d know that there’s no way of testing if an RF transmission is “actually audio”. If she has no understanding at all of digital devices and digital transmission, why is she bothering to write this section at all? Did she owe Tink a favour? Maybe she should have an Internet Phone conversation with him, and have someone pick up the other extension and listen to what it sounds like. “No, no audio conversation at all,” they would report. “All I heard was a noise that sounded like a fax machine or a modem.” DUH!

But let’s imagine that I really did want to spend all of my time in Dallas ignoring the reason I was there, and instead playing with RainSensors. Junk suggests that anyone with such an interest (which isn’t me, but let’s pretend it is) would “rent, borrow, beg or steal” the equipment necessary to analyse the devices. Well, let’s just walk through the logic of that one, Barb, real slowly for you. There are two logical possibilities. If the device is a rain sensor, it will still be one when I get back with all that gear. If it’s a listening device, then … someone’s listening, right? Oh YEAH! I can hear the penny dropping in Junk’s head from here.

And that’s it. All the Junk she could think of.

<quote off>

would you care for the link?

'Craig Lamson'

with the understanding Dr. John Costella is *thorough*, when I first read his comments regarding rain sensors, I laughed through every sentence --

Of course that's the problem with Costella...he is NOT "thorough"!

dgh: oh-my gosh, the lone Nutter's found a physicist foolish enough to challenge Dr. John Costella, I missed that, who is it and is his/her specialty optics? You clowns might get a book deal after all...

He shows us this when he failed at the Moorman.

dgh: speculation -- our pedestal base in Moorman 5 is thicker than your Moorman 5 pedestal base

He shows us this when he is unable to understand a simple shadow in an Apollo photograph and does not do a simple photograph to see how it actually works.

dgh: one source of light on the moon, yes?

He shows us this when he fails to understand how much a shadow moves when a lamp post leans and does not attempt to actually see real results but rather simply "tells" us it "can't" be that much.

dgh: "post leans" -- what post physically leans? You talking about the Stemmons Fwy. sign that was taken down right after the assassination?

dgh: should be a piece of cake to prove, yes? I'm sure your sides physicist can explain all the discrepencies[/b]

He shows us that when he tell us that it physics makes it impossible for a vertical object (line) to change angles in a photograph (Stemmons Sign) when the sign in question is NOT vertical.

dgh: you'd do yourself a favor if you read the book -- better yet, have Josiah recap it for you.

He shows us that when he tells us he can alter images to make them appear to be from the same camera position and then whan called on it admits that well yea, you cant do that when the camera has moved

dgh: my you guys getting sensitive about a physicist's study -- would you like to buy the DVD's of his presentation, or a copy of the book?

He shows us that when he tells us that it is impossible to sharpen a photograph pre computer when in fact the opposite is true.

dgh: of course its true in 'optical printing', Ray Fielding tells us how its done....

AND

He shows us that when he writes about Rain Sensors WITHOUT DOING ANY RESEARCH AT ALL.

dgh: I bust out in a smile EVERY time I hear 'rainsensors'

He's a piss poor example of "thorough" David, but exactly what we have come to expect of ANYONE connected to either you OR Fetzer.

In other words...laughing stocks!

dgh: of course he ISN't a piss poor example, he caught on to the Lone Nutter's game, early on. First hand experience... see here:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ld_content.html

then to (same page) 'Gang' link -- I believe your mentioned there, Craig

While I expect a nonsense reply from you, why not BUCK your usual trend for ignorant rants and addresss the above IF YOU CAN!

dgh: why not read Costella's reply to the lone Nutter's -- my response is irrelevant, of course you expect that, nothing ignorant about Dr. Costella's response, all lurker's need do is go to the below:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ld_content.html

nice to have your cheery disposition back, I trust you had a nice vacation - as for mine, the weather in Huntsville, Al was horrible, can't stand humidity...

'Bill Miller' wrote:

JFK goes from an upright position eventually falling on his left side toward Jackie, which will take up more of Jackie's side.

How much room/time does Jackie have to climb back to her seat, lift up Jack's head/body and sit down?

I ask this as it seems strange that Jackie eventually ends up on the floor, as Bill points out .

At this point, what does she do to free herself from Jack?

What position might Jack end up in?

How much room does this leave Clint?

I am not sure what difficulty you are having ... photos looking down into the limo shows the amount of room the back seat had. The blood running down the front of Jackie's seat must have gotten there as the President bled all the way to Parkland.

I would like to know where you got the idea that Jackie ended up on the floor? jackie simply bent forward and craddled her husbands head and tried to hold his head on just as she testified to. She remained in this position all the way to the hospital. I recqall reading where she was still holding her dead husband and had to be asked to allow the SS to remove him from the limo and get him into the ER.

Bill Miller

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

perhaps the questions have not been answered fully?

with the understanding Dr. John Costella is *thorough*, when I first read his comments regarding rain sensors, I laughed through every sentence -- I knew what the Lone Nutter/non-Zfilm alteration crowd response would be. They met my every expectation, and then SOME.

It's always good to see one of your "thorough" and detailed responses, David. Costella's lack of thoroughness has been shown several times ... one instance that comes to mind was when he mistakenly wrote about this big window of time when Moorman's photograph could have been altered because he hadn't bothered to even find out the first time it was publicly displayed. Had Costella of done so, he would have discovered that it was filmed in the Plaza not 30 minutes following the assassination and while always being in Mary Moorman's possession. As far what the non-alteration crowd would say ... you should know the answer because you are one of them. It certainly shouldn't be necessary to constantly keep reminding you that you have said that you have never seen proof of alteration.

Having been in DP many times, I never saw these devices, now a few have stated; DP is a small place. So I say, so small in fact its a wonder they need all those rain sensors to determine if they need to water the damn lawn...

So, JCostella's concerns have never been answered. Lots of excuses why all those "rain" sensors are needed. It would be best if City of Dallas Park Services comment rather than second-rate landscape, irrigation wannabes....

I would think that common sense would tell someone that depending on whether you are talking about areas that are flat and have little to no run-off, areas that are shaded most of the day, or areas that are on slopes and do not hold water easily would need to be watered differently. My question to you, Jack, or Costella is ... What have any of you done to check with other parks similar to Dealey Plaza to see how their watering system is set up so to determine if DP is operating no different than other alike parks?

Bill Miller

and the DRONE goes on - most importantly, the DP rainsensor mystery persists.... LMAO! ! !

One of the very few operable sprinklers we could find in Dealy Plaza

was oddly located right by the electric eye for the flag spotlight. This

seemed like gross incompetence to us...a sprinkler to water the flagpole.

Very odd.

Jack

Jack, if like most sprinklers ... they can be set to water in a 360 drgee spray pattern right down to to a 1/4 spray pattern by simply adjusting them, so did you or Costella bother to see how they were adjusted? And considering that they can throw spray a good distance, the pole seems to be of little significance. I might also add that the low wattage light to that pole gets heavy Texas rain storms pouring down on it from time to time and with no worries concerning the wiring or ability of operating with water falling upon it. So when you make statements like the one above - I have to wonder if you or Costella had bothered to give a lot of thought to this matter at all.

Also, the sensor mounted on the sign was not under the lip of the angle iron support beam, but rather it was sticking out to the side of it ... much the same way the man is mounting one on a gutter in the photo on the link below.

http://www.rainsensor.com/WRS1P-Cut1.htm

Bill Miller

Bill Miller

with the understanding Dr. John Costella is *thorough*, when I first read his comments regarding rain sensors, I laughed through every sentence -- I knew what the Lone Nutter/non-Zfilm alteration crowd response would be. They met my every expectation, and then SOME.

Having been in DP many times, I never saw these devices [nor was I looking for them and wouldn't know what to do if I had found them]. Now a few have stated; DP is a small place, so I say; so small in fact, its a wonder they need all those rain sensors in determining how much the lawn needs public works watering...

So, JCostella's concerns have never been answered. Lots of excuses why all those "rain" sensors are needed. It would be best if City of Dallas Park Services comment rather than second-rate landscape, irrigation wannabes....

I've always admired him for admitting that he destroyed (non-critical) evidence. He knew the buffs would have a field day, but he fessed up anyway.

a felony being a felony, you would!

Dense David strikes again. I said I admired the confession, not the act. Moron.

Destroying evidence is a felony! Good thing there wasn't a trial, right maroon? Oh, were buffs around in 1964?

C'mon Slattery, dust off that [inside the beltway] PR machine you're hiding over there... LMAO!

I've always admired him for admitting that he destroyed (non-critical) evidence. He knew the buffs would have a field day, but he fessed up anyway.

a felony being a felony, you would!

'Chris Davidson' asked

Bill, does the first generation print show Clint's black sock extending from his pant leg into his shoe?

Can someone tell me who the person in the inner red circle is?

chris

*******

Jackie, her hat?

'Brendan Slattery' dronned on:

Boy, ain't that the truth. These guys really need to get their story straight. The JFK forum isn't about solving a murder. It's about making a political statement. Have you noticed that 99% of the mouth-breathers here are diehard leftists? Coincidence? If there's a conservative CT'er here, I've yet to bump into him or her. Trolls like Chuck are simply full of hate, and he's rationalized that hate by adopting a conspiracy theory that sees the people he hates as the sponsors of Kennedy's demise. All one has to do is ask “how could Lee Harvey Oswald have shot the President with that lousy rifle?” and the McChimpBushHitlerHalliburton crowd is hooked. Only a minuscule number of people know anything about a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, which was quite a serviceable weapon. Hatred for the US is their template. They just can't deal with the fact that a pathetic little leftist (i.e. one of their own) committed the crime of the century, so they twist the facts to achieve a certain desirable outcome. As for the innocent people trampled and defamed in the process? Well, they're just plum out of luck.

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

Slattery still seeing a "commie" under every mattress, spider hole?

Brandon, you'd do better trying to explain why Ronnie Raygun left Beirut after the Marine massacre? Was it CasperW or Ronnie running the country...?

Hold onto to Von Pein he needs every military retiree he can find, how is Texas these day's, Ted?

(sorry BillK)

The only thing under your mattress is a copy of Playgirl. Please don't drink and post.

I see, not many writing assignments these day's, eh? LMAO! Maybe you can help VonPein prop up Vinnie da Bugliosi...

'Brendan Slattery' dronned on:

Boy, ain't that the truth. These guys really need to get their story straight. The JFK forum isn't about solving a murder. It's about making a political statement. Have you noticed that 99% of the mouth-breathers here are diehard leftists? Coincidence? If there's a conservative CT'er here, I've yet to bump into him or her. Trolls like Chuck are simply full of hate, and he's rationalized that hate by adopting a conspiracy theory that sees the people he hates as the sponsors of Kennedy's demise. All one has to do is ask “how could Lee Harvey Oswald have shot the President with that lousy rifle?” and the McChimpBushHitlerHalliburton crowd is hooked. Only a minuscule number of people know anything about a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, which was quite a serviceable weapon. Hatred for the US is their template. They just can't deal with the fact that a pathetic little leftist (i.e. one of their own) committed the crime of the century, so they twist the facts to achieve a certain desirable outcome. As for the innocent people trampled and defamed in the process? Well, they're just plum out of luck.

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

Slattery still seeing a "commie" under every mattress, spider hole?

Brandon, you'd do better trying to explain why Ronnie Raygun left Beirut after the Marine massacre? Was it CasperW or Ronnie running the country...?

Hold onto to Von Pein he needs every military retiree he can find, how is Texas these day's, Ted?

(sorry BillK)

Bill,

Tippit also worked part time at a barbeque and a theater. What was the name of the barbeque and is it the same one owned and operated by Ralph Paul?

No, Tippit worked at Austin's BBQ and Ralph Paul ran the Bull Pen in Arlington.

Steve Thomas

THANK YOU STEVE,

AND WHICH HAD THE BETTER RIBS?

(I'M WRITING THE ASSASSIN'S CULINARY GUIDE TO NEW ORLEANS, TOKYO, MINSK, MEXICO CITY, DALLAS AND DC)

BK

rofl!

tsk-tsk, trolling? Listen Bill - I'm awaiting the best the lone nutter camp has when it comes to the Zapruder film alteration scenarios, true or false - your camp seems to have lost its voice. Trolling, you bet!

Again, how do you spell B U B B L E T O P If you can't find it, that's your problem!

xxxxx on, David. If you say "bubbletop car" it's one word. If you say, "That car has a bubble top", it's two words. Once again you seem to have blown off your big mouth without knowing what you were talking about. I guess when you couldn't show that you had any knowledge of the JFK case - you thought you'd try and showing off your English language skills, but now they have been shown to be just as poor. So what's next?

Bill Miller

Dictionary

bubble top

n.

A transparent glass or plastic dome, such as one constructed over a swimming pool or courtyard.

A transparent, often bulletproof enclosure forming the top of an automobile.

bubbletop bub'ble·top' (bŭb'əl-tŏp') adj.

LMAO! that's IT? My english skills? They're irrelevant. Your research skills are relevant, such attention to detail and you apparently can't find a White House Limo photo with the B U B B L E T O P on? Press on photo investigator!

I work for the San Diego Union Tribune (13 years) in their Prepress department.

I've been in the graphic arts field for over 20 years.

Have lived in San Diego for 40.

My interest in joining the forum is driven by a desire to learn the truth, in the assassination of JFK. I'm mainly interested in the photographic research of this case.

nice to see you here, Chris

DHealy

it doesn't? How do you spell "bubble top" sheesh! There is more than one TOP for this limo, yes? Great research, lol

Still trolling, David? What's that term Jack uses for what you are doing, oh yes ... "provacateur". I don't see where you attached any images or links to show that you bothered to see if the bubble top fit the same mounts as the other top does. Earlier today I had did a search and looked at several images of the bubble top and I didn't see where it fit any differently. If you think it does, then please feel free to show how you reached that conclusion?

Bill Miller

tsk-tsk, trolling? Listen Bill - I'm awaiting the best the lone nutter camp has when it comes to the Zapruder film alteration scenarios, true or false - your camp seems to have lost its voice. Trolling, you bet!

Again, how do you spell B U B B L E T O P If you can't find it, that's your problem!