David G. Healy

'Bill Miller' wrote: Maybe someone can do a search and find out what these mounts were used for? It has been suggested to me that this is an antenna mount, as well. The limo top doesn't come out over the car far anough to utilize this mount, so it must have another purpose. ***************** it doesn't? How do you spell "bubble top" sheesh! There is more than one TOP for this limo, yes? Great research, lol

'Mark Valenti' wrote: Whenever one of his crazy claims gets pummeled into dust, the Rah Rah Jack Genuflectors remain suspiciously silent. Maybe they don't want the rain sensors to know what they're really thinking. ***************** Mr. Valenti, trying to impress BMiller earns you two steps *backward*, and hide your face in shame -- also, when you post about rainsensors, and post rainsensor photo, please give the proper credit, use the correct DP rainsensor photo -- Now, JackW didn't publish about rainsensors. If you wish to discuss rainsensors drop JCostella a line, be forewarned, he doesn't have much time these day's for wannabe JFK researchers and neophytes trying to impress those that have been around for a few years.... I hear CLamson is retiring from JFK issues soon, maybe you can spend 3 years or so learning the ropes from him, well, two weeks anyway! Always there for you, champ! David Healy

I do wonder sometimes what Jack and his cronies think when after we saw response after response telling us how photographically challeneged we are only to have to show them what the actually witness said about her ethnic race. I am guessing that if history repeats itself, then instead of learning anything about the causes of shadow. light, and film stock effecting how someone looks on fa photograph ... they will just look for yet another blurry photo or film capture and start all over again with yet another poorly researched claim, while chanting how we are on the run or that it is our credibility to interpret photographs that is what's in question. Bill Miller still waiting for those photo credentials, tsk-tsk... blurry photos have had you bouncing all over the internet for a few years now... Dodging, weaving and changing the subject away from the new and improved upcoming Zavada/Fielding report has been duly noted... LOL! We, at least I don't want or need the new and improved [Monaco] Z-film frames, nor the MPI frames, access to the LIFE 35mm Z-frames would be nice though....

Jack, are you trying to "PROVOKE" me? Here is the definition that you attribute to others for doing the same thing .... "A provocateur is "one who provokes". I am not biting on your trolling efforts. You will not distract me from the more recent sorry-assed photo interpretations that you make. BY the way, isn't Costella one of the people in your 'Hoax' book who thought Moorman's photo was altered, but was unaware that Mary's photo was filmed not 30 minutes following the assassination? Did Costella ever tell you that you were in error about Toni Foster being 7' tall? How about when you said that the women along the north side of Elm Street were not moving ... did Costella ever correct you or was he unable to see your mistakes? How about the Moorman in white shoes nonsense ... did Costella ever correct you or was he not able to see your error???? How about the 'Franzen grows' claim ... did Costella correct you on that one or could he not see Mrs. Franzen stepping backwards? You see, it does little good to have people brag on you when they are not qualified to see your mistakes. And how about citing David Healy concerning the photographical record being altered - was he not also in 'Hoax' .... David has said on this forum (and after seeing your claims for years) .... 'I have not seen any evidence of alteration.' Bill Miller LOL, now you're depending on me? ROFLMAO! I've stated ( many times before), I [nor anyone else] can not prove [or DISPROVE] Z-film alteration! That is until film forensic testing is performed on the alledged Zapruder in-camera original. Even Roland Zavada knows THAT! Bark up another tree, better yet, let us see a few outside opinions [from those qualified to render them] on *your* photo analysis skills...

Dance??? I answered your questions and the one or two I wasn't sure about ... I then directed you to a source that could assist you. I guess that some lazy loud mouth like yourself just wants everyone to do all your research for you. Bill Miller Getting testy out there in the wilds of Canada, eh? Gary responded to my questions which I will post to this thread later this weekend... Have you seen Myers precanned "FAQ" responses? Not bad for a 3D graphics artist, gotta be 5000 words -- must be intuition, LOL!

Let's tackle these "startling anomalies" one by one. 1. Blue lady is simliar in both - no disagreement there. 2. "Lady in blue dress with raised clapping hands is motionless lady in grey dress in Zapruder." It's very clear that in both images, the woman is wearing a blue dress. The only difference is in the shading. 3. "Waving Negro lady - ( WAVING NEGRO LADY?!?:!?!) in black topcoat waving becomes lady in brown jacket and light skirt." Again, wouldn't the color look different depending on how grainy the image, the distance from camera to subject, movement of camera, etc.? This is not sinister, it's just two images from different cameras. 4. "Lady in red blouse waves with right arm extended high; in Zapruder is motionless." It's not clear that she has her arm extended high. If she does, what happened to her sleeve? 5. "Waving lady in yellow dress and white sweater becomes lady with purse in Zapruder." She's identical in both. Yellow dress, purse. any waving in the Z-film?

Correct, David. Gary knows that I have an interest in the photographical record, so rather than to repeat himself ... he often forwards or attaches my email address to the messages pertaining JFK related data in them so I can look over the available data, as well. Bill Miller roflmao -- you're the only one. I call that type of courtesy something else... You get a copy of Gary's email to me this morning? Nope...

David, let me make this equally clear ... if you do not seek information from the Museum or NARA, then you certainly won't get a response. I asked Gary during a phone conversation recently just how many people from this forum have called to get data pertaining to these subjects and I think he told me that no one had. So what you are doing can be compared to someone wanting to know who is calling you, but you won't bother to pick up the phone and answer it to find out. The Museum is better able to answer that question for they have the copyrights to the Zapruder film. I would think however, that because the Zapruder family gave their interest in the copyrights to the film away, then they no longer recieve any monies for its use. David, I have tried to make this very clear and I do not know if I am not saying it well enough or if a select few are purposely ignoring the facts, but I am not the voice for the Museum. I use the Museum like I would a library because it is one of the top resources for acrhived information on the Kennedy assassination. One would not say that because you go to the library on a regular basis to seek information on a certain subject that you have become the voice for the library. Bill Miller this is a public forum, public questions regarding the Zapruder film are asked, if you don't know or won't answer the questions just say so! It's not necessary for you to dance... You hesitate not in the least, quoting GMack on any number of film/photo issues so, on this board you're the de facto voice of the museum, no one else is! Why are you ducking these questions....?

'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] I cannot say for sure what Dale specifically did without going back and researching the evidence pertaining to his work. It would seem to me that the logical thing to do is for you to email Dale Myers and ask him straight out this question. I don't know Dale's email address because I don't remember ever emailing him, but I am sure you can find it on his web site. I recall something said about the ABC stuff on Dale's cite, but I canot quote it at this time. See .... http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq.htm Bill Miller *************** "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? 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. 2) Did Myers pay a Z-film usage fee, or did ABC pick up that tab? 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 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 shake_aeffects@yahoo.com

'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] Jack, is the best you can come up with? My lawyers took over half of my settlement, so is less than half a million dollars worth you giving up your interest in the JFK assassination, which by the way ... my interest in the assassination dates back over a quarter of a century before I recieved a penny. Next is the other stupid thing you said and that is that I try to protect the Zapruder film. I'll have you know that I have used the Zapruder film to show that JFK was not shot from behind, but rather from the front. Once again you have posted about something that you know nothing about and did it with "caps" ... we'll sit back and see what Ashton has to say now about the matter. Bill Miller ***************** Perhaps Ashton will be kind enough to ask his questions after you answer the ones here regarding the new-improved, fully washed and dusted Zapruder Film.... my earlier [this thread] follow-up questions: 1) When did San Francisco's Monaco Labs do the Zapruder film work and 2) was the finished Zapruder film product utilized by Dale Myers (16mm or 35mm film) for ABC's documentary (in short did DMeyers get to use the upgraded film, or individual digitized FRAMES from same, in his 3D Lightwave animation of DP events)? The same documentary he, Myers won a Emmy for?

BM: You have it wrong. It's a 16MM copy of the original 8MM film. No 8MM camera was used. I think that by getting Trask's book and reading it that many of these questions can be answered. 2. Why was the copy source of the new animation 16MM FILM? BM: The NARA wanted two preservation copies: an as-is "as is" “forensic” copy and a "preservation" “descratched” copy with as much dust and dirt removed as safely as possible 35MM was considered adequate for making those preservation copies. NARA apparently also made 16mm prints from the 35mm preservation master. I’m not clear, but apparently two or more 35mm preservation copies were made. One shows the normal viewing area and the other shows the entire film, form edge to edge, including the sprocket holes and part of the frames above and below each frame. This was done to document each frame throughout the entire film. BM: At NARA’s request, Monaco made 35mm copies of the original 8mm film. The 16mm copies made for NARA came from the new 35mm preservation copy. They may also have made color separation transparencies, which is how many important Hollywood color motion pictures are preserved. BM: MPI made 4 x 5 color transparencies of each frame of the original film. Trask says NARA will eventually make 35mm slides of the frames. BM: No changes were made to the film and no digital cleaning was performed. Bill Miller Few more follow-up questions: 1] When did San Francisco's Monaco Labs do the work and 2] was the finished Zapruder film product utilized by Dale Myers (16mm or 35mm film) for ABC's documentary?

Yes, David ... in a sense there is. The thing is that you have to be capable of following a bloody elephant in a fresh fallen snow. While this has been told to you before, I will repeat it once again. It seems pretty obvious by now that at least Sitzman was on the pedestal, unless you wish to say that another woman in the same clothes and head scarf (Altgens 8) was a stand-in for Marilyn. The close-up photo of her has been posted before as she was talking to a man right next to the pedestal. The Paschal film catches a man in a dark suit and hat getting onto the ground having just hopping off the pedestal. That man is captured on film by James Altgens (Altgens 8). The Bell film captures that man stopping as he walks only a few steps and as Bell films on - he quickly passes over this man again as the subject walks into the shelter. (Sitzman, I believe, had given an oral history saying that she, Zapruder, and the Hetser's all met in the shelter immediately following the assassination.) Art Rickerby then takes a photo showing Sitzman, Charles Hester, and Abe Zapruder standing inside the shelter. A nice bright image of Abe's face in rthat Rickerby photo can be seen in Trask's book - National Nightmare. The alternative is that someone stood-in on the pedestal and then did a switch-a-roo with Abe, presumeably in front of Sitzman and the Hester's and they are all part of a conspiracy to hide that alleged incident from the American public following the assassination. Bill Miller Bill, makes no difference what's obvious to you, so there is NO identifying photo of Abe on the pedestal, yes? Further, "that man" this, "that man" that, (I find that curious, why not say Zapruder?) -- are you trying to make a conspiracy argument out of the simple comment: there is NO photo identifying Abe Zapruder or Marily Sitzman standing on the pedestal?

I quite often get a copy of those emails and they do not effect my computer. Bill Miller You quite often get a copy of Gary's email to others? Oh-my!

While CAPS is a form of emphasis, so is boldface. I must not be as educated on word definitions as you are, Ashton. emphasis n 1: special importance or significance; "the red light gave the central figure increased emphasis"; "the room was decorated in shades of gray with distinctive red accents" [syn: accent] yell (yĕl) v., yelled, yell·ing, yells. v.intr. To cry out loudly, as in pain, fright, surprise, or enthusiasm. In the book by Trask's (National Nightmare) there is a good image of Zapruder's face as he is standing just inside the shelter with Mr. Hester. Several photos and films all that interact with one another where one was taken within second or two of the other, so the man in the dark suit and hat and the woman in the light dress and black head scarf can be seen leaving the pedestal and walking away. So not only can we identify the man in the photo I just mentioned that is found in Trask's book, but in the same book is a really good close-up of Sitzman's face still in the same dress and scarf and at the same pedestal seen in the films and photos. It appears that Jack hasn't bothered to correlate these things because he is too busy still trying to figure out why a shadow being cast over something will make it look darker on film. Bill Miller Ah, what? Identify who, Zapruder? There's a photo ID'ing him OR Sitzman on the pedestal? Post it here, please -- AND Jack asks probing questions, certainly enough to keep a ARMY on their toes. So Bill, you're a dreamer!

It has been suggested that the Painman and BSman are one and the same. Jack Ice pick: 1 Jack: 0 such a sweetheart -- the dude is getting his ass kicked on the alt.conspiracy.jfk board -- so he hides out here, these trolls never change....

'Brendan Slattery' wrote: Sure. Just as soon as he apologizes to me for being a "paid provacateur" or maintaining two forum identities. Just as soon as he apologizes to the US govt for supposedly tampering with the Zap film, faking the moon landings, or killing 3,000 fellow Americans on 9-11. Just as soon as he apologizes to the family of Nicole Brown Simpson for working on the Butcher of Brentwood's defense team. And the beat goes on ... You aren't a "paid provacateur"? Surely you jest! It was Robert Groden that was involved in the OJ case! YOU do PR? roflmfao!!! Keep at it though, we need someone to dust of Tom DeLay's image, after all, he is running for re-election, tsk-tsk

First of all ... you only said that a Chris Davidson discovered it - that does not tell us the source. In fact, you went on to ask questions in your previous posted illustration as if you didn't know where it came from or why was there a 16MM print on the leader .... THE SOURCE WOULD KNOW THE ANSWER. Also, you stated above that the film copy in question is available in DVD, but you didn't say where it is available? The NARA has not released that particular copy on DVD, so tell us who released it and where it can be found??? It is a 16mm copy of the 8mm camera original Z film, showing the entire film from edge to edge. When I spoke with Gary Mack about that particular copy, he said that the 'NARA made two versions: one AS IS, the other "DESCRATCHED' which means, in their terms, cleaned with much of the dust and debris carefully removed from the film surface.' The way I understand it is that 'the NARA made two versions: one as it was, the other "DESCRATCHED' which means, in their terms, cleaned with much of the dust and debris carefully removed from the film surface.' Bill Miller uh-hmmm quote on The way I understand it is that 'the NARA made two versions: one as it was, the other "DESCRATCHED' which means, in their terms, cleaned with much of the dust and debris carefully removed from the film surface. quote off can the above be understood as a "altered" (improved) version of the camera original Zapruder film? Done carefully of course! I think we all understand there are many more Z-film versions than the two you or Gary speak of at NARA.

Jack, I think some of us were waiting to see just how much paranoid propaganda you'd spew out over this piece of film without bothering to investigate it further. I mean, did you even ask Chris Davidson where he got the film ... did he find it on a bus, in an alley, in a garbage can, where??? This would be the first thing I would want to know if someone told me of a discovery. But that's OK, I'll tell you where it came from, Jack! It's the NARA preservation copy, which is the cleaned version, has some extraneous film attached before the Zapruder footage. Chris or someone just ordered a tape dub from NARA and the version they supply has what is known as film leader spliced onto the front of the reel. Leader is normally blank film, sometimes with an identification slate (or slide), that provides protection for the rest of the reel. It's standard film procedure to attach extra leader before the beginning of a film. Monaco Film Laboratory was the name of the company that did the work. They are based in San Francisco and I am sure they wouldn't mind telling you what is written on the leader film. I believe this stuff is mentioned in the Richard Trask book (National Nightmare) that's been out for a few years now. Gary Mack told me of these things some time ago .... maybe you might want to use the Museum sometimes for an educational tool to learn things if you are not going to bother ever reading Trask's book concerning the latest data on the Zapruder film. Bill Miller I've heard this film called something else.... it's OLD news, we know what it is. Having said that, the quality, even a severly compressed internet QT version, beats the hell out of the "good quality" MPI DVD version! But let's not make the quality of same THE issue... a good question, and yes, to stay on point; the necessity to reduce ANY Zapruder film blowup 16mm (or 35mm) film to 8mm? Explain please.... Lest I forget, how'd this Z-film clip get to a blowup status, and who approved same, and of course WHEN? Seems as though you were discussing at a earlier time, a specific problem, that being, alterationists being able to deliver a reasonable, good quality altered 8mm Zapruder film. Your position: the film would be instantly recognized as a fraud by non-alterationist "photo experts" some on the Lone Nut side of the equation. why? (To fool all those non-suspecting believers in the WCR ) Specifically: CONTRAST and GRAIN and film properties issues... Looks like another issue Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding will need to address in their new and improved Zavada report. Quite familiar with Monaco Film Labs, I worked for a few TV stations in the "CITY" San Francisco bayarea, film of course was the king in those day's... How about these reasons xxxx xxxxx. Maybe to VIEW it on an 8mm machine? Maybe thats the format they had available to shoot at the time? Out of 16mm stock? Maybe copy version one was created on 16mm, copy version two was created in 8mm? Lots of posibilities, one being you have no imagination? Why shoot an 8x10 chrome and then reduce it down to a 4x5 dupe? Its done all the time. you ALWAYS want your source imagery at the best resolution possible, 16mm has problems, take it direct to 35mm exactly as Moe Weitzman did in the 60's -- dumb it down to whatever the market will accept/buy -- done ALL the time. Ask MPI!

David...they are building a case for black canvas shoes that turn completely white, like this...caused by specular highlights. Jack E X A C T L Y, Jack

Bill Miller' wrote: Jack, if you are going to complain about people using the term "pinhead", then you may not want to use terms about people being "ignorant". In response to one of my post you said, "More non sequiturs! Reflections on black shoes do not make the shoes ALL WHITE. They are still BLACK SHOES with reflections. Of course specular reflections appear white WHERE THEY MIRROR THE LIGHT SOURCE AT CERTAIN CURVATURES, but a shoe has various curved surfaces which DO NOT MIRROR THE LIGHT SOURCE... dgh: get the real issue on the table. Which is, as seen in the Zapruder film: dark shoes that appear as COMPLETELY *white shoes* on the infield grass being worn by a certain woman, eh? Sure you want to go THERE with what you've posted above AND below? If so, how was the light (sunlight) reflected back on "dark colored" infield shoes, turning them (dark shoes) entirely WHITE? The sun was to the rear and left of that certain woman, yes? [...] Unless JThompson or GMack want to step forward and endorse YOUR commercial photograpic work, noise! We know Craig Lamson is a professional photographer, not a bad one either, piss poor bedside manner, but not a bad phoptog.. At this time, you on the other hand, have no verifiable professional photgraphic expertise. So lets see, Thompson worked directly with LIFE regarding films, thats on the record. Gary Mack is all over the place on tape, film and articles concerning DP imagery, Lamson sells and promotes his photographic wares on a website someplace... JWhite has a 50 year track record as a professional photog, complete with University archive...We know Costella's physics background, light and optics specialty. How about your professional photo/film resume? Want to be taken seriously, let us know so the rest of the shoe still appears BLACK! I cannot believe these idiotic meaningless claims. dgh: NOT believe is the best you can do? Nobody has claimed that shiny surfaces do not have specular reflections! It is a fact that specular reflections are DIRECTIONAL reflecting light only when the reflecting surface is at the proper angle to the camera, and cannot turn an object from one color to another. dgh: again how did a certain womans *dark* shoes turn "entirely white" in the Z-film? On a curved surface, not all points are capable of reflecting at the correct angle of incidence. Dumkoffs. dgh: claim with no support, bluster.... Bill Miller

Interesting? come on.....you're all over the internet boards.... You have 69 posts to this forum, where's your picture - what's the matter with you?

The same can be said about the time you spend responding to post that you have little knowledge of. You realize that there is a reason why Josiah is well respected in the JFK community and elsewhere and you are not. I notice that you put forth a constant effort to judge someone because of their position on a particular matter rather than the quality of their work and I believe that approach to be wrong. Bill Miller pssst, I could care less whose respected in the JFK internet research community, I'm not looking for a job, nor act as diversion for the Lone Nutter camp... 12 years of internet debate stands as testement to Lone Nutter intransegence. I suspect sooner rather later, cameras; lights and microphones will appear!

In the spirit of even handedness, here we go, AGAIN. Why not stick to the books, Josiah! I wouldn't worry about Lamson's reputation, he's just window dressing around here, he does however, take the nicest pictures of chairs, in a row, YET! With and without specular highlights! you know one question I have always wondered about, how did a Ph.D. in Philosphy, from a unknown college, overnight, make it to LIFE magazine, handle, study, review, [not to mention] and photograph the alledged in-camera Abraham Zapruder film and other JFK related photos? Go on to write (6 Seconds in Dallas), which at the time was the definitive CT book regarding the JFK assassination? I suspect many here haven't a clue regarding how all that came about. p.s. we do notice how much time you spend reviewing Jack's work, though Dave - Tink's PhD was from Yale, he taught at Haverford US News and World Report America's Best Colleges 1 Williams College (MA) 2 Amherst College (MA) 3 Swarthmore College (PA) 4 Wellesley College (MA) 5 Carleton College (MN) 6 Bowdoin College (ME) 6 Pomona College (CA) 8 Haverford College (PA) http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/r...artco_brief.php Haverford College is a private, coeducational liberal arts college located in Haverford, Pennsylvania. The college is known for its academic excellence and is consistently rated as one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haverford_College For the record I respect Craig for his expert understanding of photography as well as his ability to debunk nonsense regarding the Wellstone crash and Zapruder film. Can't say that I agree with his politics or (sometimes) overly strident tone. yep, I know he went to Yale, and taught at Haverford. I'll make that clear in my original post

I guess that was Order No. 1122.5-B, which ordered Humes to tell SOME lies and SOME truths (when he probably should have also been lying) during his testimony. That's logical (for the CT-Kook Brigade, that is). And, naturally, nobody's "conscience" could ever overtake those proverbial "military orders" no matter what, right? Humes, etc., were nothing but walking, talking military pawns, doing whatever their "Master" says. Right? Why doesn't anyone (besides LN advocates) use common sense when evaluating this murder case? This especially applies to the throat wound to JFK, which nobody in Washington even knew existed until 11/23. I guess maybe they should have just pretended that that wound didn't exist at all....that way Humes wouldn't have needed his fireplace. Thank goodness 2,100 pages of common sense re. this case shall arrive soon. Of course, we do already have some CS&L re. the ballistics end of the case from Mr. Sturdivan, via his recent book. Mr. Bugliosi will only build (greatly) on that, however. One example of a top-notch piece of common sense being exhibited by Larry Sturdivan is this: "The totality of reliable physical evidence, supported by eyewitness accounts of his doing what the physical evidence shows he did, makes the case against Lee Harvey Oswald an open and shut case. He murdered John Kennedy and Officer Tippit and gravely wounded John Connally. The {Mark} Lane myth of 'Oswald as Patsy' and all similar conspiracy myths merit no serious consideration." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; "The JFK Myths" (c.2005); Page #246 David Von Pein is the only person in America that feels Vin Bugliosi's book is forthcoming sometime this millenia. David Von Pein apparently knows more than Vince's publisher... A 2,000 page, buffed up, alternate WCR