David G. Healy

'Mark Valenti' wrote:

[...]

And I hold the fervent hope that you will refrain from posting your photographic inanities or at least think them through before you start mucking up poor-quality jpegs with rainbow graphics.

Your stated belief that you get 300 things out of 1000 correct indicates that your poor track record doesn't bother you in the least. In fact, you seem quite proud to be wrong "only" 700 out of 1000 times.

But it's this very shoddy approach to accuracy that hurts the entire JFK investigation.

It's not my command of the "facts" that is harmful, Jack. It's your insistence on tainting the entire community with your National Enquirer-type of sensationalism. You have become the William Randolph Hearst of the JFK assassination.

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

bull-pookey, period!

Jack conducts research, research most of us are too damn lazy to conduct! Certainly research Lone Nutter's wish he didn't conduct.

Tainting? with up to 90% of america thinks something fishy is about, concerning JFK's demise, I say ANYONE trying to convince JWhite that he should cease his research, is indeed, THE "tainting" culprit

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

I wonder what Fletcher would have said had he seen where you posteed a clip of Jean Hill saying how she was 'standing in the street', while not pointing out where she said she had gotten back out of it before the first shot was fired ... all in an effort to promote your position.

dgh: was Prouty alive when the Moorman5 street/grass issue came to light? What difference does it make if Hill was in the street before the first shot? I suspect most on the infield were on the street before the first shot.

Bill Miller

'Bill Miller' wrote:

"Scotch" is a generality. Adhesive cellophane tape is more

descriptive.

While I do not care to turn another JFK related thread into a 'Jack White moon session' ...

dgh: surely you jest?

I sincerely have my doubts about it being scotch tape. I recall when the Apollo 13 crew had their air tank problem and how they were forced to invent a rig to fix the situation - they had used duct tape.

One other thing, your moon-flag photos are different. Note the angle difference and the dark spot at the upper right of the flag. In other words, these are two different photo sessions. That would certainly account for the changing light conditions. Have you examined this series of pictures for information about the lighting? How do you know where the sun was located?

Bill Miller

'Craig Lamson'

I was a bit rushed this morning, added some posts before heading off to the studio...you know the place where I use specular highlights to define shape, texture and surface reflectivity...the things that help make a 2d representation (photograph) of a 3d object look more 3d.

As usual davie your ignorance is overwhelming. Here is a perfect exampe of a specular highlight from a specular surface creating shape and that wonderful 3d effect. Its not ugly, nor does it distort the image...in fact it MAKES the image.

Yes, I understand my ignorance is overwhelming, Craigster you need (and use, btw) foamcore to flatten out (bounce) your lighting to a object, in this case a vehicle, AVOIDING the specular highlights you cherish...

I'm not suprised you have suach a limited understanding about light, after all shooting head shots for the evening news, doing the odd industrial training video or sitting in a darkened room pulling switches does little to prepare one for doing exacting lighting. You are just another wannabe.

hey, your not trying to BS a client here, your studio stuff looks fine, doesn't reflect reality in the least, such as the JFK related photo under discussion -- so key, fill, back and MAYBE "rim" lights, flags, fingers, dots and C stands -- not rocket science champ - 1st year product photo students learns this stuff, certainly second year television lab students...

TV station master control directors and technical directors don't "pull" switches, they "punch and take" switches -- Technical directors, film/video compositors and NLE editors do however "pull" mattes, which is another story, isn't it? LMAO!

Do I owe White3 an apology? Why? He is totally wrong and so are you. You owe ME an apology davie.

do get back to me when you determine if Ansel Adams used specular highlights to enhance photos in his vast b&w portfolio ... and, I've never seen a matte or brushed colored black vehicle before, vanity photo or manufactured as same?

According to the Warren Commission this was the path of the bullet that hit both JFK and Connally.

From what I recall John, the Australian Outback test results has the round exiting Connally's chest much lower than the WCR...

'Craig Lamson' wrote:

The "photographer wannabe" White writes:

"And despite what Lamson says, a BLACK SHOE cannot photograph as white.

Fortunately, these provocateurs are revealing themselves as

phonies in their stubborn insistence that a hand is a shoe, and

that is the best thing about this little exercise."

Thank you Jack, your stubborn insistance that you have even a slight clue about Photography is showing you the be the phony you really are.

Black is easy to render as white, despite your ignorant pleadings to the contrary. Examples:

Black leather airport chairs

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37596415

Black ladder rack:

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37596439

Black tires on a trailer ( colored balanced to yellow for effect)

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37597025

Black steel tubes

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37625540

Black car

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37595305

Another black car

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37595310

No Jack, a good photographer knows that specular highlights, and broad, diffuse highlights along with shadows are the key to creating photoggraphs that have depth and a "3d" look.

Only "photogrgapher wannabes" like yourself would think that an image without highlights would be a "good" image.

dgh: How about the worlds most famous photographer, Ansel Adams? Never saw a blown out *highlight* in his photographs creating a 3D type look, EVER. I, and many others consider his work the best b&w photography and printing, EVER, Ansel wannabe enough?

Highlights ARE A REQUIREMENT if you want to show the SURFACE REFLECTIVITY of an object and the SHAPE of an object.

dgh: not sure what your argument is [are] -- all your photos display specular highlights, some highlights appear more diffuse (softened) probably by redirecting a light_source (bounce light, reflected light), which I'm sure is designed, having said that, none change the fact, all the objects in your photos are dark of pigment, [including red]. I suspect the same can be said for the shoes in the limo photo, the shoes are dark in color, black or brown, in the limo phpoto, with specular highlight. Does the highlight off the trunk add to (reflected to) the specular highlight on the shoes? Not much, if any, it doesn't need any, a single unhampered light source is in play here, the sun... One thing is certain, the trunk highlight, nor the shoe highlight was flagged

You need to buy a clue...wannabe.

I've not looked to see if Adams went to pure white on highlights but my gues sis that he did IF that isd what he wanted. He WAS the master of the zone system you know. But I've not studied his colletion fo quite some time, maybe I will. In any case YOU have no idea if he does or not. As usual you are simply blowing smoke.

Well yea the shoes are BLACk or DARK and have a nice bright reflection, which is the entire pointof he duiscussion. Get up to speed Healy, you are looking like a dork.

Who said anything about the highlight on the trunk adding to the highlight on the shoe? Learn to read dork.

You're outted, dude -- When confronted with the bane of studio and location photography -- specular highlights, and further, they help in a photos 3d interpretation [read:depth], all I can say is ROFLMFAO! It does the exact opposite, distorts the image... makes no difference what this photo topic happens to be, you're definition above is pure bunk!

You owe Jack White a apology.

Admit it, you stepped on Clyde, be grateful you were'nt wearing golf shoes....

A master photographer should be able to tell ANYONE (especially one that claims b&w photography prfessionalism) if Ansel Adams blew out highlights? Unbelievable, never happened champ. Ansel Adams, master of F5.6/8 b&w photography, even in snow. One of Ansel's lab printing gurus has a studio 2 miles from here, I've hired the "guru" multiple times during the last 8 years for large format [8x10 trannie] shoots, concerning watercolor artwork.... we spent hours discussing his teacher...

In the mock shooting, where did the "magic bullet" exit Kennedy's body? Why was this location on the JFK dummy never shown (should have been in the center of Kennedy's throat, below the Adams apple)?

Yes, I was puzzled by that too. BUT, the location of the front wound on the mock JFK is actually shown, but in the form of a doctor's chart, where the bullet's exit has been marked (kinda like the Boswell Face Sheet). The exit was way lower than the throat, in the upper chest. However, as I mentioned, there's no way the SBT can ever be duplicated perfectly. The shot also entered too low and to the left (although it also looked like the research team placed the actual back wound in the wrong place...so that adds to the confusion I suppose).

But, in a general not-to-the-inch sense, the test bullet performed amazingly like the real CE399, with the test bullet also emerging PERFECTLY INTACT (not fragmented at all)....a key point IMO, proving that Dr. Wecht's theory of such a bullet HAVING to be all but mutilated beyond recognition obviously is in serious error.

2) Why do you think the bullet didn't do the same damage to Connally's wrist and thigh as the actual bullet? In other words, how successful was their attempt after all?

Well, since the test bullet broke two JBC ribs, instead of one, and was slowed more by doing this in JBC's mock body, it didn't do as severe a wrist damage in the test either. And the bullet did not penetrate the thigh. It bounced off.

But I want to again stress the SIMILARITIES between the test and the real deal in '63 (instead of stressing the dis-similiarities, which I admit there are). That test bullet took the same general path through TWO bodies, did an approx. amount of bodily damage in two bodies, did damage to the very Connally body parts that WERE damaged in JBC in '63, and the bullet came out in pretty good (unfragmented) shape.

A pretty decent re-creation of a so-called "IMPOSSIBLE" event if you ask me.

Here's the test bullet after it emerged from the JBC body:

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg

Other pics:

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6720.jpg

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6726.jpg

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6721.jpg

3) A more challenging mock shooting would have been the attempt to replicate the Kennedy head shot. I was disappointed that the Australian team didn't attempt that as well, since they had most of the equipment and materials set up there. What do you think?

Yes, that would have been nice to see. And to see that if, after a slight forward movement, the head would move backward, toward the gunman. Although, again, how likely are we to ever see a PERFECT DUPLICATION of such a "jet-effect" like scenario WITHOUT subjecting a real live human being to such a test? Not very likely IMO. Any volunteers? .... Hmmm, no hands?? I don't blame you. I'm not doin' it either.

4) The forensic pathologist interviewed in the show was asked for an opinion regarding the number of shooters after he read the damage to the victims from the reports given to him (or something to that effect). The pathologist thought there were at least 2 shooters.... Any thoughts on that?

Oh, you bet I have thoughts on that. That last part (with the L.A. physician), in fact, was one of the best parts of the documentary....in that it PROVED beyond all doubt (unless some CTers want to accuse that doc of being "in" on some Disc. Channel "plot"; lol) that a professional doctor CAN, indeed, be mistaken about the SBT-like wounds on two victims that were hit by just one bullet.

He didn't say "2 shooters"...because he couldn't have known that detail. But, in his opinion, he said the damage was done by probably "more than one bullet".

Many CTers have argued with me, saying that the doctor's remarks about his belief that "more than one bullet" did the damage he was looking at on the X-rays somehow proved that one bullet COULDN'T have done the real damage to JFK & JBC.

I follow that silly argument up with --- Well, for pity's sake, man -- THAT WAS THE WHOLE IDEA OF SHOWING THE DOCTOR THE X-RAYS. By him being wrong, it just proves that it was certainly possible for doctors like Cyril Wecht (et al) to possibly be in error re. the real Kennedy case and the SBT too.

no doubt Mr. Von Pain will be launching into his infamous support for Vin Bugliosi and his "everything that ails the CTer" cure all, forth coming books (15 years in the making). Maybe Ben could assist you in keeping your arguments/debate regarding case evidence, particulary WCR evidence in this case, on point?

Oh, how much lower was Connally's 're-creation' chest exit wound, when compared to the actual?

appears direct sun light is creating a specular highlight on a dark shoe, which makes the shoe, a 'black' or brown shoe with specular highlight! Anyone suggesting the shoe is not dark?

Yes, I believe Jack mentioned something about the shoe being white.

Bill Miller

oh? I'd love to see a black or dark colored shoe (under studio lighting conditions) blown out, turned **completely white** -- Or, take the same shoe outdoors and blow it out, **completely white** using old 'sol' as the lighting source -- distance, surface size, and surrounding surfaces need help in blowing out any one object, entirely... What you have in mind?

Think Craig got caught up in this one, champ! Specular highlights are a "bane". These day's with digital photography they're, er, 'more' tolerated, in certain photos or film (primarily motion film/video) communities, not only expected, some LD's light for and required by the shoots Creative Director (however, most times the effect is ADDED in post production. Looks like hell and certainly does nothing for "3Dimensional" photo interpretaion...

Know anything about 'mids' gamma adjustment and specular highlights?

'Craig Lamson' wrote:

The "photographer wannabe" White writes:

"And despite what Lamson says, a BLACK SHOE cannot photograph as white.

Fortunately, these provocateurs are revealing themselves as

phonies in their stubborn insistence that a hand is a shoe, and

that is the best thing about this little exercise."

Thank you Jack, your stubborn insistance that you have even a slight clue about Photography is showing you the be the phony you really are.

Black is easy to render as white, despite your ignorant pleadings to the contrary. Examples:

Black leather airport chairs

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37596415

Black ladder rack:

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37596439

Black tires on a trailer ( colored balanced to yellow for effect)

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37597025

Black steel tubes

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37625540

Black car

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37595305

Another black car

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37595310

No Jack, a good photographer knows that specular highlights, and broad, diffuse highlights along with shadows are the key to creating photoggraphs that have depth and a "3d" look.

Only "photogrgapher wannabes" like yourself would think that an image without highlights would be a "good" image.

dgh: How about the worlds most famous photographer, Ansel Adams? Never saw a blown out *highlight* in his photographs creating a 3D type look, EVER. I, and many others consider his work the best b&w photography and printing, EVER, Ansel wannabe enough?

Highlights ARE A REQUIREMENT if you want to show the SURFACE REFLECTIVITY of an object and the SHAPE of an object.

dgh: not sure what your argument is [are] -- all your photos display specular highlights, some highlights appear more diffuse (softened) probably by redirecting a light_source (bounce light, reflected light), which I'm sure is designed, having said that, none change the fact, all the objects in your photos are dark of pigment, [including red]. I suspect the same can be said for the shoes in the limo photo, the shoes are dark in color, black or brown, in the limo phpoto, with specular highlight. Does the highlight off the trunk add to (reflected to) the specular highlight on the shoes? Not much, if any, it doesn't need any, a single unhampered light source is in play here, the sun... One thing is certain, the trunk highlight, nor the shoe highlight was flagged

You need to buy a clue...wannabe.

Lamson claims to know lighting and

photography. Now he proves himself

a fraud. Or a xxxx. He becomes less

and less credible.

Jack

Give it up Jack, you have lost. Yes, its a broad white highlight on a black shoe, just like the broad highlight that makes the top of the black limo seat WHITE. You can see it right behind the shoe.

How do I know this and you don't know this? Because I create lighting effects just like this everyday in the studio and on location. Its the result of spending nearly 3 decades becoming a master photographer. You on the other hand have proven over and over again that you don't have a clue about light nor shadow. Your '50 years of photographic experience" has garnered you less knowlege than a first year photography student. You are the equal of Grandma walking around town taking snapshots. It is you sir that is the fraud.

Now, please tell us what object is hanging over the lower triangle chrome strip in the Miller photo. Lets see if you really do have a clue, or are just a poser.

appears direct sun light is creating a specular highlight on a dark shoe, which makes the shoe, a 'black' or brown shoe with specular highlight! Anyone suggesting the shoe is not dark?

(quote)

def. spec-u-lar:The term specular means that light is perfectly reflected in a mirror-like way from the light source to the viewer. Specular reflection is visible only where the surface normal is oriented precisely halfway between the direction of incoming light and the direction of the viewer; this is called the half-angle direction because it bisects (divides into halves) the angle between the incoming light and the viewer. Thus, a specularly reflecting surface would show a specular highlight as the perfectly sharp reflected image of a light source. However, many shiny objects show blurred specular highlights.

This can be explained by the existence of microfacets. We assume that surfaces that are not perfectly smooth are composed of many very tiny facets, each of which is a perfect specular reflector. These microfacets have normals that are distributed about the normal of the approximating smooth surface. The degree to which microfacet normals differ from the smooth surface normal is determined by the roughness of the surface.

The reason for blurred specular highlights is now clear. At points on the object where the smooth normal is close to the half-angle direction, many of the microfacets point in the half-angle direction and so the specular highlight is bright. As one moves away from the center of the highlight, the smooth normal and the half-angle direction get farther apart; the number of microfacets oriented in the half-angle direction falls, and so the intensity of the highlight falls off to zero.

The specular highlight often reflects the color of the light source, not the color of the reflecting object. This is because many materials have a thin layer of clear material above the surface of the pigmented material. For example plastic is made up of tiny beads of color suspended in a clear polymer and human skin often has a thin layer of oil or sweat above the pigmented cells. Such materials will show specular highlights in which all parts of the color spectrum are reflected equally. On metallic materials such as gold the color of the specular highlight will reflect the color of the material.

(end quote)

pretty basic stuff in 3d graphics - ray tracing....

'Len Colby' wrote:

[...]

I didn't even know who you were back then. I only heard about you about a year ago. I haven't been keeping tabs on you as should have been obvious since I provided a link to the Webpage that quotes you (typically of course you edited that out of your reply), perhaps Robert Perry "has been tracking what (you) have been saying for six years" but that's his and your problem, I never met or communicated with him.

___________________

to quote Mr. Colby: "Typical tactict of someone caught in a lie or without any valid arguments, try to change the subject by questioning the motives of your opponent."

so, how is Roland Zavada doing with his new and improved Zavada report, nearly 6 months now? As the spokeperson for his camp, you've been lax in posting updates of his progress.... heh?

Your attack was obviously very traumatic and despite our differences I'm glad you survived. I imagine it is more gratifying to think you had been targeted for assassination than that you nearly died because a nut job broke into your house but IMHO the latter is more likely than the former.

Len

There is no doubt in my mind that it wasn't a CIA plot, but implying that it was does make for a more interesting story. Besides, why would the CIA want Jack gone ... he has been their best asset at making CT's look incompetent!

Bill Miller

making CT's look incompetent is taking a toll [not to mention energy], thousands and TENS of thousands of posts, endless hours spent making animations, comparison photos, running all over the internet chasing that elusive CT, of course I'm pointing to efforts Lone Neuter's are spending on one Jack White! Then there's those alledged CTer's claiming other CTer's are making the conspiracy cause look incompetent --

Here's a news flash for them! A conspiracy, is a CONSPIRACY. In the final analysis, advances in the case will determine what side is correct...

Quite frankly, WCR supporters strategy is: do nothing. I define that 'nothing' as filling up certain spots on the internet with nonesense, posting opinion and interpretation in direct support for the WCR, not a stich of new evidence and/or advancing their Lone Nutter/WCR cause.

btw, why is the "no doubt" in your mind any different than Jack's photo determinations? Whose wrong in either interpretation? You, him, both of you? -- Implying and supporting JFK assassination related photo's were altered carries the same amount of weight as you're determination the CIA wasn't involved. Apples to Oranges! You'll never know if the CIA was involved, hence intangible -- the Dealey Plaza photographic record on the other hand, is tangible.

Interesting stories abound concerning the CIA. Whether myth or lore is for others to determine, unless of course you have insider information...?

NO MOTIVE was ever deduced,

So why did you use the word "assassin"? Are you so conceited that you think you're worthy of being bumped off? LOL.

Happy b-day.

My-oh-My these Washington D.C. white collar Super Heroes!

Hey John Simkin, this the guy you're monitoring? If so, this part of the forum's *new* free speech policy?

On Sunday July 14, 1991 at 5:15 a.m. a naked assassin attacked

me as I slept, stabbing me in the chest more than a dozen times

with an icepick, hitting me in the head and fracturing my skull and

destroying my hearing. Leaving me for unconscious or dead, he

started chasing my wife as she was trying to call 911 for help. Though

near death, I managed to run next door for help. The neighbors called

police and ambulance as I collapsed on their front porch. Within 15

minutes I was in the emergency room at the hospital. The assassin

fled without harming my wife. I was near death for four days and

was in the hospital 24 days. The ER doctors told me I was only minutes

from death from a collapsed lung and other injuries...but miraculously

I was given a "second life". Now in my 15th year of my new life, I

am trying to make it count for good.

Grateful to be here.

Jack

As I'm grateful you're here, as well as myself! I'll even make room for BM!

I am puzzled by this Zapruder image. Ideas?

Jack

Jack, that frame comes from the Peter Jennings special that aired nearly THREE YEARS AGO. You are just now finding out about their version of the Zapruder film? And you call yourself an expert on the Z film???????????? How can this be? Have you written a letter to ABC? Placed a phone call? Have you done anything but act baffled?

Bill Miller

not sure Jack claimed he's a expert in the Z-film, not sure ANYONE has claimed that expertise, you're not are you? Only one I can conceive as expert in the camera original Zapruder film, is Abe himself. Unless he left something for posterity (other than a 16 million dollar bill for the American taxpayer) we're in the dark when it comes to Z-film experts -- As the new and improved, forthcoming Zavada report is displaying -- 6 months to assure the American public the Z-film isn't altered (so far)....

While we're at it, what's the source of the Z-frames used in Jenning's docu (I suspect this was Jack's intention)? Rumor has it, Josiah Thompson had/has access to 35mm version of the Z-film. If Myers did in fact do a 2d conversion to 3D for *source* portions of his cartoon, it makes sense he'd want the highest quality Z-frames available.

Question: Jack, do you believe there is any reason to think that the alleged animaters altered the curb stripes on the existing Zapruder film?

Bill Miller

An excellent question! Since the film is an animation, that is entirely possible.

I do not know the answer.

Jack, because you claim Moorman was in the street, then your answer should have been that at least part of the yellow curb stripe had to be added, at least the part that Moorman would have stood in front of, but you didn't think of that. I just wondered how thoroughly you would think the question through before answering. Thanks for the promt answer.

Bill Miller

compositors know how to make film *experts* such as yourself wonder, ask Ray Fielding...

'Bill Miller' wrote:

I'm still confused about certain elements of the photo. Is that an antenna sticking out from the sock area?

Yes, check the WH garage photos or maybe the Croft photo for signs of retractable antenna mounts.

[...]

If they're retractable antenna can you explain how they attach the bubble to the limo? Appears what you think is a retractable antenna sits squarely on top of the bubble platform, heh?

Where did the color version come from?

Is it possible that the self-proclaimed ZAPRUDER FILM EXPERT hasn't read Richard Trask's 2005 book National Nightmare, which is all about the Zapruder film? It's a book that is loaded with related photographs - some of which are previously unpublished. For instance, here is a good photo (see insert) of Sitzman standing next to that pedestal that you like to claim she was never on.

There is even a good photo of Zapruder just inside the doorwary where you can see his face, while most other prints are too dark to tell that it is Mr. Z. Inside this book is also the color version of the Croft photo.

Bill Miller

Great Moorman photo of Zapruder, I'd recognize him ANYWHERE!

'Bill Miller' wrote:

oh Bill, Jackie didn't sit down either, so you silly guy, below you say:

"Jack, so it never dawned on you that the gray haired individual you call JFK sitting upright in the limo as it enters the underpass in the Zfilm was John Connally"...

Maybe someone else can post something that better explains what on earth you are talking about.

tell us Bill, is the grayhaired individual in the postphoto John Connally sitting up? Who ID the person as JC sitting up, and where might one find the cite?

Let's see; Kennedy's dead on the seat. Connally's in Nellies lap based on Nellies testimony, regarding this threads photo and based on your above comment to Jack, we're to believe Connally [as opposed to Kennedy] is the one sitting up prior to entering under the Elm Street railroad overcrossing? ah Bill, whose the clown here?

So is it your position that neither JFK or Connally was sitting up when the limo entered the underpass or is it your position that you agree with Jack and that it is Kennedy who sat up and his hair has turned gray?

NEITHER, neither of the two sat up, include in that; "Connally heaved up", I thought we got past this dumber than a stump stuff a few years back, you reverting to old habits, AGAIN? Show us testimony where Connally satup, during the LIMO ride after Z350? Put us out of our misery, cite something for a change

'Bill Miller' dronned, AGAIN

dgh: more Lone Nutter propoganda --

dgh: tactic and more Lone Nutter propoganda --

dgh: turning over a new leaf, champ? Or still hoping for a position at the 6th floor. Your not going to fool those of us that were around well before you arrived on the scene:)

What did you call this again, David .... "feeling left out"?

Bill Miller

mumwah? why? I know Gary, told him under the present circustances he does a great preservation job. Needs a good PR firm though. NOR would I want his job...controversy doesn't scare me, its all the ass kissers I'd have to deal with, revolting, just plain disgusting...

So NO not feeling left out, can't wait for Zavada and Fielding to finish up

'Bill Miller'

Well, I personally think that when Gary Mack finally starts making claims about 'JFK sitting upright in the limo as the limo enters the underpass' or starts calling tree trunks 'people standing up in the limo' by using poor blurry images, then Gary will stop getting so much attention. Until then he will probably be considered a good source for information concerning the JFK assassination.

dgh: I heard that "good source, Gary" from a few major US media sources, I also heard WHY they consider same, has something to do with the Zapruder Film, and rights usage of same footage (which is shorthand for; how much do we have to pay for it this year ) and absolutely NOTHING to do with Gary's conspiracy and/or lone nutter theories nor any other films/photos housed in the museum concerning the assassination of JFK... some comments: "if we want access to Z-footage and our competitors have access, we do what we have to do. After all these years, the assassination is still a raw topic...! And of course, some comments are not flattering towards the 6th floor...

I applaude the Dallas City Fathers for understanding the problem they have, now they need to find a good PR firm, maybe DCtonia Brandon Slattery, you know the "bitchslap" guy, maybe he can help them out

Bill Miller

'Bill Miller' dronned, AGAIN

[...]

Some people have gone on and claimed the Zfilm was altered even after their theory was shown to be wrong,

dgh: more Lone Nutter propoganda --

yet I didn't hear you call them a whore. I believe there was a conspiracy,

dgh: tactic and more Lone Nutter propoganda --

yet I don't believe many of the nutty things said by other researchers when it comes to a conspiratorial matter ... I guess that makes me a whore as well. Again, what an odd thing to say.

dgh: turning over a new leaf, champ? Or still hoping for a position at the 6th floor. Your not going to fool those of us that were around well before you arrived on the scene:)

Bill Miller

'Brendan Slattery' wrote:

[...]

Did you just arrive on Earth? Jack has a long history of claiming faked photographic evidence in the JFK assassination. He has claimed that the backyard photos of Oswald were faked, and more recently that the Zapruder film was faked. Then there's the Apollo nonsense. When he went before the HSCA to face people with genuine expertise in photo analysis, he was gloriously bitchslapped:

dgh: great diatribe young man, we're all familar with .john McAdams house of Lone Neuterism, been there, done that in the early 90's. Now if you'd answer a simple question, who (by name) are these photo experts you speak of? Then you'll no doubt tell us your expertise regarding the subject matter, eh? No fair regurgitating the same old Nutter BS, denying you incompetent to comment, then commenting anyway, Nope, no good! You Neuter's have been been rehashing the same nonsense for 30 years -- be a bastion for the cause, light up the countryside with your wisdom, your country needs YOU...

Oh, wee "bitchslapped"? 30 years ago that was a "HATE" term, straight out of San Francisco ... directed towards the gay population. Coined by the you know who, you a racist, too?

In short, he's a fraud. His only "expertise" consists of posting pointless, cut-and-paste images to moonbat, left-wing, anti-American message boards where he finds a receptive and gullible audience.

is it any surprise our country is having a tough time seeing past its own nose? With right-wing whacko's like we have here, it's no wonder our international standing is in the tank -- Now if we could only find a good PR firm...

Bad news: I just crashed his party.

Good news: roflmfao -- you wouldn't make a small pimple on a gnats ass, who do you think you are, Little Shrub?

'Len Colby' wrote:

[...]

I don't believe in theories that Jack and Peter believe in and say why on this forum, this leads them to suspect my motives and suspect that I'm some sort of 'spook'. Fetzer and Healy have also suggested this as did an old lady who I used to live near, her son told me just got out of the psych ward (I confess I put something in her drink).

dgh: this the thanks I get for suggesting you as the go-between for the new and improved Zavada report? Of course, you've failed miserably in that endeavour!

Why should I give two craps if you're a ex-pat, ex CIA dude eeking out a living in the jungles or the streets of Brazil? Hell we got more ex/retired-CIA dudes living in Las Vegas than there are in all of Central and South America. You don't impress me champ... Now, if you stayed in a Holiday Inn last night...

Other than that, how is Roland and Raymond fairing? 6 months now, tap, tap, tap...

Possible mistake. The person has no head.

Jack

Jack, you are looking at a small tree trunk that is between the car and the camera.

Bill

this frame 463 -- this frame from Tinkster's 35mm Z-film, if so, the location of the 35mm Z-film print?