David G. Healy

'Bill Miller' dronned:

[...]

David Healy also references the Mary Poppins movie in the name of possible alteration of the Zapruder film when he said, "Obviously (or perhaps not, to Durnavich and Wimp), any special effects editor will match up features from frame to frame to present the illusion of reality.

[...]

me reference Mary Poppins, a movie I've never seen? You have to get your alterationists straight there Bill, no need to lie about this stuff - you losing it?

DH

Bill Miller

Bill Miller' drones on and on and ON

dgh: whoa, whoa, whoa....run UP on the curb? Or a difficult time negotiating the beyond 90 degree lefthand turn onto Elm St.? ... the Towner film as well as EVERY other motion picture film covering the Limo negotiating that corner, has a edit/splice/break/or stop down...WHY is THAT?

David, as someone who's research stops with paranoia, you obviously haven't cross referenced the Bell and Martin films ... as well as the full sprocket Doorman film against Towner's film. The splice that you speak of in Towner's film covers possibly two frames ... you aren't suggesting that the limo ran over the curb and got back on track in 2/18s of a second are you

dgh01: nice dance, pal. How do you know that splice covers 2 frames? And, you haven't addressed the question, where'd the "run up on the curb" come from?

Next, the Doorman full frame film shows the limo in the center lane halfway through its turn. The Bell and Martin films are not spliced and they pick up the limo during the time Towner's film is missing its two frames and the limo is seen in the middle of the street.

dgh01: imagine that, just so happens to cover 2 'unverified' frames -- that's a red flag... but don't let me hold up your parade here

So if we can get past the unecessary paranoid assertions and actually compare the evidence ... the limo made a correct turn and remained in the center lane the entire time. If the "other film" shows something different, then it is a fabricated film.

dgh01: well first you've got to assure all the lurkers and me, Towner is missing only 2 frames, far as I'm concerned it could be 40 frames -- read my words "why does every film that covers that corner have a splice, cut, camera stop down during sames footage?

dgh: what you personally believe makes not one iota of difference regarding independent research concerning matters, and/or the photographic record of JFK's assassination. Nor do my personal beliefs.

We are not talking about personal beliefs, but rather a systematic viable way of cross checking the evidence ... I just mentioned above how that was done concerning the allegation that the limo left the center lane of traffic and ran over the curb

dgh01: I believe the point here is the 'limo ran up on the curb' -- you're quote, where did that come from, who stated it and when? Pretty simple question for any DP film/photo researcher

dgh: "their other' film was..." are you suggesting those people may have ownership of the *other* film...?

maybe fear has something to do with that -- after all it's not unknown whacko's are out there, looking for ANY opportunity. Demonstrated on numerous occasions, which you may or may not be aware...

btw, "people" have been kicking the *other* film around for years", this isn't one of your; "I haven't seen it, therefore it doesn't exist renditions is it?

I don't know how to address something that does not accurately reflect what I said, but I will try. No one said that these alleged witnesses to this other film had ownership of it ... I am puzzled how you even made that connection. Maybe you should read my remark again ... "these people who claimed how vivid and shocking their "other film" was ... cannot seem to pinpoint the date that they saw this film or give the names of anyone who saw it with them." Everything I said was in past tense. And it doesn't matter if I saw it or not ... what I have been saying is that their descriptions of what their "other film" depicts do not even match what the other alleged "other film" witness says.

dgh01: rofl! gheesh --- that response was a waste of bandwidth...

dgh: I don't recall, was Ms. Sitzman a photographer? You do know what a Filmo is don't you? EYEMO? Great Bell&Howell cameras, FILMO 70xx 16mm, EYEMO 35mm motion picture cameras (still in PRO use today) -- each out of the box camera load is 100' feet of film [certain models will accept a 400' magazine], stock models run pretty close to 25 seconds on a full wind, variable speeds; 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, 64fps. Come to think of it.... Dave Wiegman used one, ALL the time... years ago I used both in school, much heavier than a B&H414 Director series double 8mm rig, about the same size though... then of course there's Bell & Howell Sportster [of the same era], the 8mm rig, small, light, fit right in the palm of your hand... only one's imagination limits...

OK, you can name cameras ... what does that have to do with the information I have provided here?

dgh01: not just name guy. Which opens up all sorts of avenues and questions

Bill Miller

Sometimes, when I see pro conspiracy researchers fighting like cats in a sack, I think I ought to find something more productive to do with my limited spare time.

Stephen you're being 'too' kind. When you get authors who are selling books, researchers [who work most of the time in the background with no limelight] doing specialized evidence research and presenting their material from the same podium, minutes apart to media reps... Who do YOU think is going to moan the loudest AFTER the fact?

'Bill Miller' wrote:

Chuck, Scott Myers (one of the alleged "other film" witnesses) said that Kennedy and Connally were being shot all to hell as the limo was rounding the corner from Houston Street to Elm ... now I don't consider that a "slight variation", especially when not one witness in Dealey Plaza said that the shooting started as the President was pssing through the intersection in front of the TSBD. There is also a big diference IMO between a .5 second limo stop and a 4 second limo stop where everything was alleged to come to a halt. And oh yes, those who claim to have seen this alleged "other film" and who saw the limo run up onto the north curb as it came around the corner ...

dgh: whoa, whoa, whoa....run UP on the curb? Or a difficult time negotiating the beyond 90 degree lefthand turn onto Elm St.?

the Towner Film shows that to be false,

dgh: the Towner film as well as EVERY other motion picture film covering the Limo negotiating that corner, has a edit/splice/break/or stop down...WHY is THAT?

filmas well as the notion that Connally and JFK were being shot up during the turn onto Elm. So maybe it is those types of things that you can feel comfortable with in lumping them all together as the same film, but not I. Either someone is lying their ass off or these people who claimed to have seen this alleged "other film" had seen a dramazation. I personally do not believe they saw an "enhanced version" as you suggested.

dgh: what you personally believe makes not one iota of difference regarding independent research concerning matters, and/or the photographic record of JFK's assassination. Nor do my personal beliefs.

I'll leave you to ponder something else ... these people who claimed how vivid and shocking their "other film" was ... cannot seem to pinpoint the date that they saw this film or give the names of anyone who saw it with them. One fellow claimed he saw it in college, so how could one not know the names of anyone who was present. They don't even mention the names of anyone who they discussed this tramatic event with right after they saw it. This is something that had it been seen as they claimed, then people would have ben kicking it back and forth for the longest time - thats human nature, so something about their story deserves to leave some doubt in any investigators mind IMO.

dgh: "their other' film was..." are you suggesting those people may have ownership of the *other* film...?

maybe fear has something to do with that -- after all it's not unknown whacko's are out there, looking for ANY opportunity. Demonstrated on numerous occasions, which you may or may not be aware...

btw, "people" have been kicking the *other* film around for years", this isn't one of your; "I haven't seen it, therefore it doesn't exist renditions is it?

I don't recall, was Ms. Sitzman a photographer? You do know what a Filmo is don't you? EYEMO? Great Bell&Howell cameras, FILMO 70xx 16mm, EYEMO 35mm motion picture cameras (still in PRO use today) -- each out of the box camera load is 100' feet of film [certain models will accept a 400' magazine], stock models run pretty close to 25 seconds on a full wind, variable speeds; 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, 64fps. Come to think of it.... Dave Wiegman used one, ALL the time... years ago I used both in school, much heavier than a B&H414 Director series double 8mm rig, about the same size though... then of course there's Bell & Howell Sportster [of the same era], the 8mm rig, small, light, fit right in the palm of your hand... only one's imagination limits...

David

Bill

'Joan Mellen' wrote:

[...]

This disgraceful conduct only makes me long for the camaraderie of a cohort of professional historians, and sorry that people the likes of Robert Caro, Michael Beschloss and Taylor Branch have, so far, lacked the courage to address the issues of the assassinations of President Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr....

...

________________

Ms. Mellen,

I believe a presenter at the podium with you yesterday, at one time stated, "today's historians have failed when it comes to JFK's assassination..." or words to that effect. (I always thought, the WINNERS wrote HISTORY, anyway...)

So, welcome to the real world Ms. Mellon, the only "disgraceful conduct" I'm aware of regarding JFK's assassination and or related events, then or now is, the 'assassination' itself.

Quite frankly, when it comes to "professional historians" regarding JFK, WCR, and attendent volumes, most don't know case evidence and/or lack of, from a hole in the ground -- So, I wouldn't worry too much, you were amongst some good longterm researcher company yesterday. Exception being, the guy that put up the buckeeros... Evidently, he cast quite a net when it comes to who he thinks is responsible for JFK's demise, damn near everyone, and agency, right?

So, you'll sell a few books, let your agent and publisher know from here on out, you want better venues to hawk your wares. Say, any stage large enough to hold your importance?

David Healy

>From former Secret Service agent Marty Venker's book "Confessions of An

Ex-Secret Service Agent" , pages 24-25:

" [in Secret Service school] We'd also watch films of real-life

assassinations. Naturally, the featured attraction was the home movie

Abraham Zapruder shot in Dallas on November 22, 1963. THEY SHOWED YOU THE

GRUESOME VERSION THAT THE PUBLIC USUALLY DIDN'T SEE, WHERE PARTS OF

PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S BRAIN SPRAYED ALL OVER JACKIE. Again and again, I

watched that film. The instructors didn't want us to ever forget it

[Emphasis added]."

And, yet, Jackie is clean in appearance in the Z film we know of...?

vince palamara

...another piece to fit into the puzzle!

Jack

Let's test this assertion with common sense.

You would agree, wouldn't you, that if there is indeed an unalterated Z-film different from what the public has been shown the past 31 years, then it is a very sensitive state secret, at the very least. Indeed, you regard this "genuine" article as one of the conspiracy's smoking guns. Fine -- and I would concur with that conclusion if I accepted the premise.

According to the Secret Service website, there are now 2100 special agents, not to be confused with 1200 uniformed personnel. Let's be very conservative and assume that ONLY those agents assigned to the protective service are shown this "genuine article" in Secret Service school (though it's probably all 2100) -- and let's estimate that number at 1000. Let's further assume that 75 agents leave the service each year through retirement or resignation, which is probably also conservative. To balance these very conservative assumptions and keep things simple, let's finally assume that the protective service has remained at 1000 since 1975 even though it has probablyh grown.

By my count, this would mean that approximately 3250 men and women in Secret Service training have been shown this genuine article -- this smoking gun of the conspiracy -- during the 30 years the American public have had the fraudulently altered version foisted upon them.

Now why would the keepers of this super state secret take this risk -- particularly after they supposedly offed hundreds of witnesses to the assassination? For pedagogical reasons? It seems to me that the risk/reward on this is more than slightly skewed, and that the supposedly altered version would be pedagogically sufficient.

Best kept secrets are hidden in *broad daylight*, state or otherwise...

offed? What SS agent OFFED who?

Are you aware of how many SS Agents (% per year of the entire Agency less uniforms) are assigned to the Presidential/White House Detail ....?

State secrets can't be kept? How many folks do you know of that actively participated [and went public with their admission] in say, the Manhattan Project?

On the theory that even on a day cool and cloudy, a third of a pint is better than none at all, I summarize below my impressions of today's proceedings between 11:00 and noon, Washington time. I had to leave at noon because of prior commitments.

1. The conference's sponsor, Paul Kuntzler, spoke for 5 minutes. Apparently decent and very well meaning, Mr. Kuntzler has been troubled by press coverage since the assassination, and especially since the release of documents following the JFK Act some 15 years ago. With the exceptions of Helen Thomas and Robert MacNeil, no one in the national media, in Kunzler's view, has given this issue the open mind and attention it deserves.

(This gentleman certainly knows how to put on a conference. He secured a substantial portion of the main ballroom of the Willard, one of our finer hotels, and provided seats for about 300 guests. I counted at least 8 flat screen televisions in the anteroom, one showing original footage of that dreadful weekend, another showing "JFK", etc. The ballroom with supplied with a huge flatscreen and an overhead. Unfortunately, I counted about 30 guests in addition to the panelists and technicians that first hour -- many of them in or barely out of college, the balance "forty-something" geezers like me. This, I suppose, is what happens when an event is publicized for the first time the very night before it occurs. I felt sorry for Mr. Kuntzler).

3. He was then followed by Jim Fetzer, who spoke until 11:20 and also served as a bridge between subsequent speakers. Jim launched an attack on the WCR, the HSCA Report, and "Case Closed" that I'm sure is familiar to you all. He recounted his belief that there were at least 6, and as many as 8, shots fired in DP that day, with JFK sustaining a wound to his back from behind, an entrance wound to his throat, and two head wounds, one from behind and another from forward of the vehicle.

4. What, then, is one to make of those X-rays? Enter Dr. Mantik, who had spent nine days at the National Archives and made two principal points today. First, even though five X-rays were taken of JFK's head (he knows this from two witnesses), only three appear in the Archives, and they are copies, not originals. He knows this because the originals should have been roughly textured because of scraped emulsions, but the X-rays he saw were smooth. Dr. Mantik then demonstrated how easy it is to alter copies, suing a pair of scissors and his daughter's toy.

Second, describing a technique termed optical densitometry, Dr. Mantick explained that the massive rear head wound observed by the doctors was deliberately masked by the X-Rays. How does he know this? Because the rear head appears far too bright in the X-rays, with a "contrast factor" of 1000 instead of the usual two. If the X-Ray of the rear head were genuine, then JFK indeed would have been a "bonehead".

Dr. Mantick concluded by noting that the X-rays do not square with pictures and eyewitness descriptions of the brain, with too much matter missing in the front. He also noted 3 doctors did NOT observe a 6.5 mm bullet grain in the brain, which shows up on the X-rays.

5. A little after 11:30, Doug Horne took the floor, also speaking for about 10 minutes. He served on the AARB staff from August 1995 through September 1998 and claims to have found "unequivocal evidence of a government cover-up of the medical evidence", and specifically 'serious fraud' in three areas.

He observed that there were three and not one versions of the autopsy report, Ex. 387. Dr. Humes admitted under oath while deposed by the AARB that he burned a draft report along with his notes in his fireplace. Another "original" autopsy report was then sent to Bobby Kennedy per Secret Service records. Yet, another "original" was thereafter sent to the Nat'l Archives per those same records. How can that be?

Horne then stated that there were two brain examinations, one on November 25, and the second during the period November 29 through December 2. The second examination, which was not of JFK's brain but of a substitute brain, was an occasion for fraud. The photos of that examination were on the wrong kind of film, and were taken from an erroneous perspective. Also, there was no sectioning, as there was in the original exam. All this per the doctors.

Horne concluded that there is something "seriously wrong' with the autopsy photos, which do not square with the observations of Parkland doctors or doctors present at the autopsy. In Horne's estimation, "something is terribly wrong' about all this.

6. Evidently, the sponsor (or perhaps more accurately, Fetzer) has concluded that the Z-film cannot be squared with a 6+ shot scenario, Enter, Thomas "Nike" Lipscomb, who temporarily drove this bus into a ditch. Mercifully, he spoke for only five minutes. He made two points.

Using descriptions of Mr. Zapruder's height, and photographs of Mr. Zapruder's assistant's attire, he appeared to raise questions whether these folks, in fact, were old Abe and his assistant. He didn't overly suggest who these people might have been, and if they weren't Abe and his assistant, where the latter two were when the would be imposters filmed. Nor did Lipscomb even mention the rather famous TV footage shortly after the assassination in which Abe -- undoubtedly the genuine article this time -- says he is Abe and explains how he filmed.

Second, and predictably, Lipscomb showed pictures of witnesses with shoes on upon arriving at Dealey Plaza, counterposed with what these women appear to be wearing in a snippet of the Z-film, white sneakers. It was far from clear to me that they were, in fact, wearing white sneakers or whether, instead, their shoes were obscured by the angle of Abe's camera and/or the grass and we were looking at their socks instead. More importantly, there was utterly no effort made to tie the significance of what was on these womens' feet to how the Z-film was altered. How can altering footwear change shot sequence and location?

Lipscomb then said he and others are at the early stages of this Z-film work. Obviously so. Any charge of alteration based on the evidence he presented today is preposterous.

6. Finally, Joan Mellon began talking about Louisiana and LHO, and I had to leave. Unfortunately, they did not get to Jeff Morley, also a panelist, while I was there.

Caveat: I saw only the first hour folks. So if anything transpired thereafter that changes the above in any significant way, I was not there to observe it.

Bruce

On the theory that even on a day cool and cloudy, a third of a pint is better than none at all, I summarize below my impressions of today's proceedings between 11:00 and noon, Washington time. I had to leave at noon because of prior commitments.

1. The conference's sponsor, Paul Kuntzler, spoke for 5 minutes. Apparently decent and very well meaning, Mr. Kuntzler has been troubled by press coverage since the assassination, and especially since the release of documents following the JFK Act some 15 years ago. With the exceptions of Helen Thomas and Robert MacNeil, no one in the national media, in Kunzler's view, has given this issue the open mind and attention it deserves.

(This gentleman certainly knows how to put on a conference. He secured a substantial portion of the main ballroom of the Willard, one of our finer hotels, and provided seats for about 300 guests. I counted at least 8 flat screen televisions in the anteroom, one showing original footage of that dreadful weekend, another showing "JFK", etc. The ballroom with supplied with a huge flatscreen and an overhead. Unfortunately, I counted about 30 guests in addition to the panelists and technicians that first hour -- many of them in or barely out of college, the balance "forty-something" geezers like me. This, I suppose, is what happens when an event is publicized for the first time the very night before it occurs. I felt sorry for Mr. Kuntzler).

3. He was then followed by Jim Fetzer, who spoke until 11:20 and also served as a bridge between subsequent speakers. Jim launched an attack on the WCR, the HSCA Report, and "Case Closed" that I'm sure is familiar to you all. He recounted his belief that there were at least 6, and as many as 8, shots fired in DP that day, with JFK sustaining a wound to his back from behind, an entrance wound to his throat, and two head wounds, one from behind and another from forward of the vehicle.

4. What, then, is one to make of those X-rays? Enter Dr. Mantik, who had spent nine days at the National Archives and made two principal points today. First, even though five X-rays were taken of JFK's head (he knows this from two witnesses), only three appear in the Archives, and they are copies, not originals. He knows this because the originals should have been roughly textured because of scraped emulsions, but the X-rays he saw were smooth. Dr. Mantik then demonstrated how easy it is to alter copies, suing a pair of scissors and his daughter's toy.

Second, describing a technique termed optical densitometry, Dr. Mantick explained that the massive rear head wound observed by the doctors was deliberately masked by the X-Rays. How does he know this? Becuase the rear head appears far too bright in the X-rays, with a "contrast factor" of 1000 instead of the usual two. If the X-Ray of the rear head were genuine, the JFK indeed would have been a "bonehead".

Dr. Mantick concluded by noting that the X-rays do not square with pictures and eyewitness descriptions of the brain, with too much matter missing in the front. He also noted 3 doctors did NOT observe a 6.5 mm bullet grain in the brain, which shows up on the X-rays.

5. A little after 11:30, Doug Horne took the floor, also speaking for about 10 minutes. He served on the AARB staff from August 1995 through September 1998 and claims to have found "unequivocal evidence of a government cover-up of the medical evidence", and specifically 'serious fraud' in three areas.

He observed that there were three and not one versions of the autopsy report, Ex. 387. Dr. Humes admitted under oath while deposed by the AARB that he burned a draft report along with his notes in his fireplace. Another "original" autopsy report was then sent to Bobby Kennedy per Secret Service records. Yet, another "original" was thereafter sent to the Nat'l Archives per those same records. How can that be?

Horne then stated that there were two brain examinations, one on November 25, and the second during the period November 29 through December 2. The second examination, which was not of JFK's brain but of a substitute brain, was an occasion for fraud. The photos of that examination were on the wrong kind of film, and were taken from an erroneous perspective. Also, there was no sectioning, as there was in the original exam. all this per the doctors.

Horne concluded that there is something "seriously wrong' with the autopsy photos, which do not square with the observations of Parkland doctors or doctors present at the autopsy. In Horne's estimation, "something is terribly wrong' about all this.

6. Evidently, the sponsor(or perhaps more accurately, Fetzer) has concluded that the Z-film cannot be squared with a 6+ shot scenario, Enter, Thomas "Nike" Lipscomb, who temporarily drove this bus into a ditch. Mercifully, he spoke for only five minutes. He made two points.

Using descriptions of Mr. Zapruder's height, and photographs of Mr. Zapruder's assistant's attire, he appeared to raise questions whether these folks, in fact, were old Abe and his assistant. He didn't overly suggest who these people might have been, and if they weren't Abe and his assistant, where the latter two were when the would be imposters filmed. Nor did Lipscomb even mention the rather famous TV footage shortly after the assassination in which Abe -- undoubtedly the genuine article this time -- says he is Abe and explains how he filmed.

Second, and predictably, Lipscomb showed pictures of witnesses with shoes on upon arriving at Dealey Plaza, counterposed with what these women appear to be wearing in a snippet of the Z-film, white sneakers. It was far from clear to me that they were, in fact, wearing white sneakers or whether, instead, their shoes were obscured by the angle of Abe's camera and/or the grass and were were looking at their socks instead. More importantly, there was utterly no effort made to tie the significance of what was on these womens' feet to how the Z-film was altered. How can altering footwear change shot sequence and location?

Lipscomb then said he and others are at the early stages of this Z-film work. Obviously so. Any charge of alteration based on the evidence he presented today is preposterous.

6. Finally, Joan Mellon began talking about Louisiana and LHO, and I had to leave. Unfortunately, they did not get to Jeff Morley, also a panelist, while I was there.

Caveat: I saw only the first hour folks. So if anything transpired thereafter that changes the above in any significant way, I was not there to observe it.

Bruce

re-run the tape twice? Thanks for your update! Hope you didn't get a parking ticket.

Oh, don't worry we won't tell a soul about your interest in the macarbe...

nasty-nasty young man, you know - that's downright insulting, Bill -- Myer's nothing of signifigance to say? And a national EMMY to boot, I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear that. I bet he's turned that into; upper end 6 figures... lol! What is it with you, jealousy? Myer's, one of the biggest advocates of a UN-ALTERED Z-film, "nothing of signifigance to say..." I say he preaches the same message as you, yes?

David, there is no insulting you IMO. And as I had said, one major difference between you and Myers is that if he has nothing to say of any significance - he doesn't say anything. On the other hand, you will post even if you do not have a single thing of significance to say.

Let me explain something to you.

Debate what? You haven't any idea what you're talking about... Post a simple "visual" example of the "emulsion grain problem" that will be a "dead giveaway of alteration" -- get with it, enough moaning about it, LURKERS would like to SEE what you're talking about... surely with Gary, Len Colby and the rest of the crew over there, not to mention YOUR extensive 8mm and 35mm motion film experience, you should be able to come up with SOMETHING, ANY visual, what do we get from you? Just names, sad --

Could it be, others are leaving you out to dry?

David, stop playing the role of the disgruntled clown long enough to answer some simple questions ... feel free to even solicit the answer from an expert(s) in film if you wish, but tell this forum if you understood the basic principles concerning the blurring of the grains when enlarging an image from 8MM to 35MM or even 8 x 10's as Jack suggested? If you did understand it, then lets go to the next step and you tell this forum if you understand how once you have "photographed" those blurred grains by now locking them into 35MM slides, then they will remain blurred even when the image is shrunk back down to 8MM size? Then if you are intelligent enough to have understood this simple process so far that applies to all photographic images, then tell this forum in your opinion why the 35MM grains on the new altered product when reduced down to 8MM size would not be sharp and would look the same as the original grains that transfered with the image and became blurred when the original image was first enlarged?

You see, David ... you can talk in riddles ... you can even attempt to dance around the issues, but you cannot in no way shape or form get around the simple basic rules of physics, which doesn't take a degree in Photography to apply to this case. Take any photograph that you have and blow it up (8 x 10 as White claimed will be a good size) and look at it under magnification and you will see that it has lost its sharpness during the enlarging process. There is just no way of getting around it! So no one is leaving anyone out to dry ... they just don't any better way to explain the most simpliest laws of physics. The problem with you is that you didn't bother to investigate these avenues before wasting all the time you did on the subject of Zfilm alteration. My only advice to you now is that instead of being angry with the messenger - you take the high road and be a man by taking some responsibility for your own shortcomings and get mad at yourself for not doing a thorough investigation on your own before becoming committed to an impossibility.

grains on an original print - sharp along edges

grains that have been blown-up - sharpness is lost along edges

blurred grains from the original blow-up process seen mixed with the sharp grains from the 35MM film stock

The illustrations apply to the basic laws of physics, thus they would apply to Photography issues as well. I have shown these illustrations to Photography and Film experts, as well as to those who have also consulted such experts, and they have confirmed that these illustrations relay the principles pertaining to the issues quite adequetly. Now pretend that you didn't understand any of this and say something else silly and misleading, David ... because that seems to be all you have left to fall back on.

Bill

__________________________

polka dots? you gotta be kidding? Where's the photographic examples? Lurkers want to see Zapruder film samples and references. The before and after???

Let me assist you;

You have access to 35mm or 4x5 trannies LIFE Zapruder-frames. Utilizing a 2k (4000k by 4000k) first generation digital file .tiff file of same, take a 500x500 pixel section of the DP infield grass of said alledged in-camera Zapruder film frame [any frame showing the infield with or without the limo] - and we'll need the provenance of said frame], that will be your Kodacolor II 8mm example still (sample-image 1), the result of image 1; in its 8mm 35mm 'bumped' form to *negative stock (make that sample, image sample 2) - then to 35mm reversal stock (make that one, image-sample 3), then back down to 8mm Kodacolor II (and finally, image-sample 4). Also, tell us the 8mm and the 1963-4 vintage 35mm film stock you'll be referencing. Show us what we should look for. How we can tell the fake frame from the original...

Care to name your experts? LOL

'Bill Miller' inked

Healy, don't you get tired of trolling on these forums. You post absolutely nothing in the way of evidence .... in fact you do nothing but xxxxx looking to jump into a post with your Baghdad Bob Healy BS. Now while I agree that Dale Myers cartoon is a farse and he won't debate the facts - but neither did you when faced with the emulsion grain problem when it comes to detecting alterations on a piece of film ... so how are you any different than Myers with the exception he that he knows better than to run his mouth when he has nothing of significance to say.

***********

nasty-nasty young man, you know - that's downright insulting, Bill -- Myer's nothing of signifigance to say? And a national EMMY to boot, I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear that. I bet he's turned that into; upper end 6 figures... lol! What is it with you, jealousy? Myer's, one of the biggest advocates of a UN-ALTERED Z-film, "nothing of signifigance to say..." I say he preaches the same message as you, yes?

Let me explain something to you.

Debate what? You haven't any idea what you're talking about... Post a simple "visual" example of the "emulsion grain problem" that will be a "dead giveaway of alteration" -- get with it, enough moaning about it, LURKERS would like to SEE what you're talking about... surely with Gary, Len Colby and the rest of the crew over there, not to mention YOUR extensive 8mm and 35mm motion film experience, you should be able to come up with SOMETHING, ANY visual, what do we get from you? Just names, sad --

Could it be, others are leaving you out to dry?

Amen, Bill? Looky here another nervous Lone Neuter. Bill Miller, you draw them like fly's, nice chorus!

Have you been taking lessons from Dankbaar? He pins Files disbelievers as spies, liars and LNs. Why is one pinned as a "lone neuter" for disputing Z film alteration? Why not stick Dankbaar on this committee and have him show his underwhelming Files "evidence"?

A few years ago after the Peter Jennings documentary came out, the uproar in the CT community was as loud as it has ever been. Even Jim Fetzer agreed that a counter response should not involve controversial issues, that accepted proof and documentation should be used. I'm afraid this will go nowhere as usual. The real issues presented by Horne, Morley and others will be overshadowed by disputes over the Z film. It took years to get this stuff together, and it will all go up in smoke because of white sneakers vs black shoes.

RJS

murder is still murder -- grow up! "Afraid it'll go nowhere?"

lmao... you Nutter's ALWAYS talk the same when an advance in the case is in the offing.

As for Myer's cartoon? Hell, he won't debate anyone about it, especially those that are versed in 3D graphics and know Lighwave -- btw, it's not in his best interest to discuss the subject, especially after he won an EMMY for his "texture mapping".... You prepared to take his 3D debate mantle?

The struggle will continue well after ANY press conference - or are you Nutter's conceding DEFEAT after 1 round?

The Washington conference makes US News and World Report:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whis...22whisplead.htm

From the article:

One discrepancy: Two women at the slaying site are shown wearing white sneakers when they actually wore black shoes. He's got the Polaroids to prove it. Lipscomb's stuff is so compelling that Fox and ABC are negotiating to buy it.

Ah yes, the great Zapruder shoe switcheroo. This is where the conference will turn into the equivalent of an SNL comedy skit. No wonder Fox and ABC want to "buy it." Probably so they can end one of their news programs with a good laugh.

I predict that the shoe switcheroo will be the sound bite that comes out of this conference.

LOL. Brother Healy may be on to something, but not what he intended. The great Zapruder/Brain Conspiracy of 2006 -- a CIA-sponsored extravanga to staunch this wave of WC criticism by creating easy marks for ridicule. Maybe someone should look into the background of the some of the panelists?

One can tell you're no litigator, get another NUTTER lawyer in here, these guy's are going up in flames --lmao. In your spare time consult with Groden, then find that BRAIN. What a nutter farce!

"for instance, one expert has assembled new photographic evidence that

raises substantial questions about whether the Zapruder film was

altered while in the government's possession. Others will present new

suggestions that a second brain was, in fact, used in an autopsy

cover-up."

I hope that regardless of what this experts says ... that he or she will have been throrough enough to address the grain tranfer issues, the contrast and color balance issues, and the other processes of enlarging film and then shrinking it back down that would be noticeable to a film expert. To date, these occurences have been overlooked by the alteration cult leaders ... I will be most interested to see if these issues are finally addressed or if this is just another instance of a photograph expert not knowing things that a film expert would know, thus wasting everyones time.

Bill

Amen, Bill. If they are going to be talking about a second brain and Z-film alteration, then I hope they bring their "A" game and dearly hope it is at least plausible. Generally, I think that ANY publicity is good publicity because it raises the profile of this issue. Indeed, I'm pleased that Fuhrman is plugging his book for that very reason. What concerns me, though, is trumpeting extravagant assertions without a substantial factual basis. That makes it easy for the LN'ers to say, "see, the CT'ers are at it again ... just say no to their Kool Aid." In other words, it makes it easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are enough uncontested facts to torpedo the WCR, and more emerging each day. We don't need to be piling on with what can be easily portrayed as X-Files sensationalism.

Jeff Morley strikes me as a sensible, cautious fellow, and my hope is that he senses what is coming and will not share a podium with apparent lunatics.

Amen, Bill? Looky here another nervous Lone Neuter. Bill Miller, you draw them like fly's, nice chorus!

"for instance, one expert has assembled new photographic evidence that

raises substantial questions about whether the Zapruder film was

altered while in the government's possession. Others will present new

suggestions that a second brain was, in fact, used in an autopsy

cover-up."

I hope that regardless of what this experts says ... that he or she will have been throrough enough to address the grain tranfer issues, the contrast and color balance issues, and the other processes of enlarging film and then shrinking it back down that would be noticeable to a film expert. To date, these occurences have been overlooked by the alteration cult leaders ... I will be most interested to see if these issues are finally addressed or if this is just another instance of a photograph expert not knowing things that a film expert would know, thus wasting everyones time.

Bill

Amen, Bill. If they are going to be talking about a second brain and Z-film alteration, then I hope they bring their "A" game and dearly hope it is at least plausible. Generally, I think that ANY publicity is good publicity because it raises the profile of this issue. Indeed, I'm pleased that Fuhrman is plugging his book for that very reason. What concerns me, though, is trumpeting extravagant assertions without a substantial factual basis. That makes it easy for the LN'ers to say, "see, the CT'ers are at it again ... just say no to their Kool Aid." In other words, it makes it easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are enough uncontested facts to torpedo the WCR, and more emerging each day. We don't need to be piling on with what can be easily portrayed as X-Files sensationalism.

Jeff Morley strikes me as a sensible, cautious fellow, and my hope is that he senses what is coming and will not share a podium with apparent lunatics.

Looky here another one of those nervous Lone Neuter morons. Bill Miller, you draw them like fly's, nice chorus!

"for instance, one expert has assembled new photographic evidence that

raises substantial questions about whether the Zapruder film was

altered while in the government's possession. Others will present new

suggestions that a second brain was, in fact, used in an autopsy

cover-up."

I hope that regardless of what this experts says ... that he or she will have been throrough enough to address the grain tranfer issues, the contrast and color balance issues, and the other processes of enlarging film and then shrinking it back down that would be noticeable to a film expert. To date, these occurences have been overlooked by the alteration cult leaders ... I will be most interested to see if these issues are finally addressed or if this is just another instance of a photograph expert not knowing things that a film expert would know, thus wasting everyones time.

Bill

Amen, Bill. If they are going to be talking about a second brain and Z-film alteration, then I hope they bring their "A" game and dearly hope it is at least plausible. Generally, I think that ANY publicity is good publicity because it raises the profile of this issue. Indeed, I'm pleased that Fuhrman is plugging his book for that very reason. What concerns me, though, is trumpeting extravagant assertions without a substantial factual basis. That makes it easy for the LN'ers to say, "see, the CT'ers are at it again ... just say no to their Kool Aid." In other words, it makes it easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are enough uncontested facts to torpedo the WCR, and more emerging each day. We don't need to be piling on with what can be easily portrayed as X-Files sensationalism.

Jeff Morley strikes me as a sensible, cautious fellow, and my hope is that he senses what is coming and will not share a podium with apparent lunatics.

you one of those nervous lone Neuter morons? Trust me, you deserve it!

Craig Roberts,

Your commentary regarding what was possible and not possible concerning Nov 22nd '63 Dealey Plaza matters may provide insight forum members may not find elsewhere. I look forward to any forum participation you take part in.

Thank You,

David Healy

MAAG-Vietnam

Feb1963 thru Feb 1964

Craig Roberts landed in Vietnam in July 1965 as a rifleman with the 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines. He was promoted to lance corporal but he was badly wounded at Da Nang and after eleven months in the country he was sent home. Roberts was transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) and was discharged on 28 February, 1968.

Roberts joined the Tulsa Police Department in August, 1969. Two years later he joined the TAC Squad, which was Tulsa's first special operations team. Roberts was selected for his Vietnam combat experience and his training as a sniper and with explosives. He attended Bomb Disposal School in Dade County, Florida and was one of three department bomb technicians.

In 1978 Roberts transferred to Police Community Relations where he served for three years as one of the department's public relations officers, giving lectures to organizations and schools. By 1981 he had become the department's "Press Release Officer" and had extensive contact with reporters from the media, both print and television.

In 1982 Roberts transferred to the helicopter unit and became its maintenance director. He also served as one of Tulsa Police Department's patrol pilots. Roberts retired from the department in March, 1996.

Craig Roberts in the author of two books on the assassination of John F. Kennedy: Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza (1994) and JFK: The Dead Witnesses (1994). He is also the author of Combat Medic-Vietnam (1991), Police Sniper (1993), The Medusa File: Crimes and Coverups of the US Government (1996), The Walking Dead: A Marine's Story of Vietnam (1996), Doorway to Hell:Disaster in Somalia (2002) and Crosshairs on the Kill Zone: American Combat Snipers Vietnam Through Operation Iraqi Freedom (2004).

"for instance, one expert has assembled new photographic evidence that

raises substantial questions about whether the Zapruder film was

altered while in the government's possession. Others will present new

suggestions that a second brain was, in fact, used in an autopsy

cover-up."

I hope that regardless of what this experts says ... that he or she will have been throrough enough to address the grain tranfer issues, the contrast and color balance issues, and the other processes of enlarging film and then shrinking it back down that would be noticeable to a film expert. To date, these occurences have been overlooked by the alteration cult leaders ... I will be most interested to see if these issues are finally addressed or if this is just another instance of a photograph expert not knowing things that a film expert would know, thus wasting everyones time.

Bill

Cult, you into fanaticism these day's? Or just suffer from wishful thinking? -- And, its not called enlarging, it's blowup as in 8mm blowup to 35mm (exactly what Groden's mentor, Moe Weitzman did with the Zapruder in-camera 8mm original he received from LIFE, you're not disputing that are you?) --

For the time being; we await the Lone Neuter side of the Z-film fence and their determinations (Zavada and Fielding) we may be waiting much longer than we originally thought. (How about getting Colby to do his interfacing job, eh?)

Color issues? Does the term Wratten mean anything to you? If not google, and tell us, ALL of us what you find...

From my sources -- this should generate some interest among researchers of the CT bent

and 'A' lot of gas for the Lone Neuter's amongst us!

MAJOR EVENT (S) MONDAY RE: JFK ASSASSINATION CASE

Two items I will add to the press release below. Jeff Morley of the

Washington Post is joining the panel to discuss his fascinating FOIA

battle with the CIA over 32 pages of documents that may clarify the

much speculated about connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA.

And US News World Report is running a major feature about the press

conference that will be on their website Sunday and on sale Monday. It

looks like we will have several TV crews at this point.

Did the U.S. Government Cover-up JFK Assassination Details?

Five renowned experts present new findings in DC

WASHINGTON, DC, May 15, 2006 - Five prominent John F. Kennedy

assassination experts will convene today at the Willard Hotel in the

nation's capitol to present new findings and make the case that the

U.S. government's investigation of the JFK assassination was replete

with errors and, most likely, a deliberate cover-up.

These experts will also raise an important question: Does the JFK

assassination 43 years ago (and the U.S. government's likely cover-up

of the details of that assassination) hold the key to regaining public

trust in government?

These five experts - appearing for the first time in a national forum

together - each have meticulously assembled key parts of a complex

puzzle that lead any objective observer to just one conclusion: that

the government deliberately covered up the details of the JFK

assassination and misled the American public.

For instance, one expert has assembled new photographic evidence that

raises substantial questions about whether the Zapruder film was

altered while in the government's possession. Others will present new

suggestions that a second brain was, in fact, used in an autopsy

cover-up.

A CBS poll on the 40th observance of the JFK assassination in 2003

indicated that only 10% of the American people believe The Warren

Report, while 74% think believe there was a cover-up. Many experts

believe that the U.S. government's mishandling of its investigation

of the Kennedy assassination began what is by now a deep inclination

for the American public to distrust it.

A Washington publishing company executive, Paul Kuntzler, hopes that,

by bringing nationally renowned JFK assassination experts together for

the first time to reveal important findings on the errors in how the

government handled the JFK assassination, Congress and the

administration will re-open the case in an effort to finally get to the

truth.

Kuntzler's company, Miller Reporting, has a proven record for

integrity in handling records and transcripts for government agencies

for more than 30 years. Ironically the records it transcribed for The

Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in 199

8 were the ones that

troubled him the most. They were the most exhaustive attempt at

reconstructing the evidence to date. And he is bringing together a

group of some of the nation's leading experts on the death of JFK to

help sort things out at a meeting at the Willard Hotel at 11AM on

Monday, May 15th.

"My belief is that our country has lost its way," Kuntzler said. "If

we could find out what happened in Dallas, it might help us to figure

out a way to regain a sense of trust in government." His concern is

that this may be a seminal instance in which the American government

lied to the American people.

"If it is possible for someone to assassinate a President in broad

daylight in a major American city, and then have the federal government

fake the autopsy evidence and conceal the nature of the crime itself,

then those who exercised that kind of power are emboldened to repeat

performances of that kind over and over again. The American people are

not unreasonable to suspect that that has happened to them many times

by now."

The ARRB was created by the JFK Records Act passed by Congress in 1992.

It had the unprecedented power to declassify documents and records held

by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other agencies of the

government. Only the President could override its decisions.

President George H.W. Bush opposed the legislation and, when it passed

over his opposition, refused to appoint its members, which had to await

the incoming Clinton administration.

The five experts Kuntzler will present include:

* James H. Fetzer, McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota.

Fetzer has chaired or co-chaired four conferences on the death of JFK

and has published three books on this event: Assassination Science,

Murder in Dealey Plaza, and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Fetzer is

not surprised at the unprecedented level of public disbelief in the

Warren Report. "Considering that the crux of the government's

position, the 'magic bullet' theory, is not even anatomically possible,

it should be even higher."

* David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has worked with the tangled web of

inconsistent and contradictory medical evidence, including the autopsy

X-rays and photographs, for many years. "It's hardly surprising that

most Americans don't know what to make of this case," he observed.

"Even a Ph.D. in physics and an M.D. did not adequately prepare me for

this chaotic record. It was probably fortuitous that John Ebersole,

M.D., who was the officer in charge of radiology at Bethesda during the

autopsy, and I happen to have the same medical specialty, radiation

oncology. Otherwise, I might not have been able to figure out what

happened to the official records during the autopsy."

* Douglas Horne, the Senior Analyst for Military Affairs for the ARRB

who discovered the existence of records demonstrating the conduct of

two postmortem brain exams, described the experience of searching

through seemingly endless documents for a few nuggets of truth as

frustrating and exasperating. "This just may be the single most

bizarre case in the history of forensic science," he observed. "I can

certainly understand why Mr. Kuntzler has found this case the most

disturbing. I was there during the ARRB's search for records, but I

still find it challenging to take the case apart and put it together

and make all the pieces fit."

* Thomas Lipscomb, the noted journalist and publisher, was President of

Times Books, the New York Times book division when it published The

Final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979.

"As a young officer in charge of a US Army Rifle and Pistol Team at the

time of the Kennedy assassination," he said, "I was asked to try to

replicate the feats attributed to Oswald with a mail order carbine

exactly like his. I couldn't. But I feel a lot better now that no one

else has either, including teams at CBS and the Discovery channel." A

senior fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future, Lipscomb

has been investigating the authenticity of the photographic record,

including the Zapruder film, and has unearthed disturbing

discrepancies.

* Joan Mellen, a professor at Temple University, is the author of

Farewell to Justice, a new study of the trial of Clay Shaw brought by

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, which led her to important

discoveries showing CIA and FBI involvement in the Kennedy

assassination "After going through thousands of documents released

since the Assassination Records and Review Act, and doing 1,200

interviews, I've learned that Jim Garrison had a host of suspects who

played a role in the implementation of the assassination of President

Kennedy. Like any criminal investigator, he sometimes found himself in

a blind alley. He would have been no investigator if that hadn't

happened. Yet he came up with the truth closer than anyone has before

or since."

QUESTION FOR DAN MOLDEA RE: THE MISSING AUTOPSY BULLET FRAGMENT

Dan,

I was wondering if you were aware that the bullet fragment Dr. Noguchi recovered from RFK's head was never booked as evidence by the LAPD and has disappeared??

A simple yes or no answer is requested...if time allows, of course.

John Hunt

John Hunt,

Dan made it clear he doesn't want to answer questions on multiple threads, why can't you respect that? Are you going to start a new thread every time you think of a new question for him? On the other thread you started your rationale was that you didn't think he wasn't giving you a straight answer. What's your excuse this time?

John Simkin,

I think this thread should be locked (or deleted) and the other one be moved to the RFK or Books section, where it would be more appropriate. Just a suggestion.

Len

lmao ---- running interference these days Len? Why don't you get a update for the board from Roland and Ray, be useful for a change... John Hunt forgot more about these assassination than you'll ever know.... give it a break

'Bill Miller'

Ed, because you were caught once making a similar post where you had blown up the shadows of the tree foliage being cast upon the stockade fence in Moorman's photograph and calling them cops with cameras (see below) ... I have to ask if you will post the frame number and a wide view of the area you are talking about.

Thanks.

Bill

______________

did you read Ed's post?

your insinuation "caught once" being?

Hey Bill, I'm going to post a Z-frame in a day or so, no commentary, just what was done to the original as I received it. I want you Lone Neuter's to tell me its origin, generation and pedigree.

When I post, probably Tuesday, feel free to pass it on to Roland and Ray... and all the other able and willing photo experts you command around here....

look at and read post 88 and 89

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=61965

in the clip the last frame in the cycle is 312, if you put the clip on continuous loop with full screen you can keep track of 312 by noting the tuft of hair on the crown of the head and the brownish blotching above the head. I haven't calculated the vertical rotation and deliberately slightly overemphasised to illustrate, but it should be obvious. look at the seat back top and you can see both the vertical and the horizontal rotation.

I'd have to defer this off to Craig Lamson because I suspect that the lens Zapruder used is causing some of this movement between those two frames by his moving his camera.

I seem to recall John Costella going over all of this during the Univ of Minn Zapruder Film Symposium... and no, its not lens distortion

I take offense at the tone and juvenile level of the above postings.

Personally, I take offense to some alteration supporter not knowing the difference between the CRB and the jailhouse, not bothering to educate himself or herself more before implying what could and could not be done to Kodachrome II film as far as undetectable alteration goes, and I particularly take offense to having to take the time to do the research for someone only to have them not reply pertaining to the facts handed to them, but rather just respond with a generic cult-like answer.

Bill Miller

Cult: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Example: "I find Costello, David Healey and Dr. Mantik all compelling. Impossible head snaps, disappearing blood spray, this is a doctored film.

Frame by frame enlarged and retouched and refilmed................"

then you'll have no problem posting sample photo's of altered Kodacolor II film... SHOW us, Bill! Show us what a 8mm Kodacolor to Kodacolor film transfer looks like, what you are basing your conclusions on.... your spending a lot of bandwidth taking on something you can't deliver, aren't you? If it looks like hell, show us an example! -- Ask Groden for a sample, his boss accomplished the 1/2 of the feat.

Maybe Lampoon can give you a hand, better yet Colby, maybe there's a SMPTE office in Brazil he can contact.....whoops, is Brazil still SECAM? Stay tuned Lurkers, stay tuned...

'Bill Miller' wrote

[...]

Below is the same view taken with a digital camera and the color and clarity in the inserted image doesn't look as good as Zapruder's Kodachrome II film images.

Bill

_____________

WHY? Then tell us why it's important . You get the film emulsion/gamma figured out yet or do I have to wait for Roland and Ray? I understand your a film researcher/expert these day's. After all your comparing digital imagery with film (what the hell thats got to do with anything, I don't know), perhaps you'll fill us in ?

Perhaps you'll give us a review of Livingstones book....? I know how you like to rub shoulders with authors, have you spoke to Harry yet?

So David when exactly can we expect to see your "formal claim" which you said you would make "soon" back in January?

I hope Rollie doesn't wait too long -- Harry's book trip him up a bit?

'Bill Miller' wrote:

nada, zip...

there you have it Lurkers -- when it comes to defending Zapruder film authenticity, absolutely nothing from Miller, AGAIN! -- you're in over your head, Bill. You do have something going for you, it's called comic relief...

Experts? ROFLMFAO....what experts have you consulted? Whoops, your the expert, right.....?

I've been watching this exchange with glee David. You should really try and stay away from these sorts of discussions because you are not mentally equipped to play.

Now for a little red meat, not that you will have a hoots chance in hell of understanding.

First I've spent plenty of time comparing unaltered and altered 35mm Kodachome film. Guess what David, even a dunce like you could tell the difference, which tells me you have not done the comparisons. Of course the major difference is contrast, even when the altered material is Kodachome dupe stock. And them there is generational losses caused by the optics in the process chain unless the copy was made via contact. But even with a contact process you still get the contrast gain. PERIOD.

Now take that Kodachome original and make a dupe with standard duplicating film or internegative film of ANY type other than Kodachome dupe stock (and as shown above that’s a can of worms itself) and you have a color mess. You see Kodachome film has a unique dye structure and when you make an internegative or dupe on standard films made for this use you get color crossovers that are impossible to PERIOD.

Now if you had ANY practical experience in any of this WHATSOEVER you would know all of this. But since you don't have the mental equipment to play you are nothing more than white noise.

You tell Bill that you are a compositing professional, and maybe its true you earn money for making composites. But the examples you have posted here and elsewhere showing your computer compositing skills on Zapruder frames are childish in execution. Perhaps you have found clients that are willing to accept crap, but its pretty clear that you don't have the mental equipment to play.

No David, you are so over your head when it comes to film based compositing its not even funny. Hell you can't even do a decent computer composite. So why is it again you are attempting to play? Give it up. You don't have the equipment upstairs.

P.S.

You really should bone up on stereo viewing...then perhaps you would not look so F--king stupid.

get back in the trailer your photographing -- who pulled your chain

I had been looking forward to learning what Zavada has to say.

Has he decided he has nothing to say?

Jack

No, Jack ... as I posted in an earlier response while you must have been nodded off ... Zavada has been ill, but was expecting to recover. But while you are waiting with interest to hear what Zavada has to say ... feel free to address the points Groden had made.

Bill

I'll bet -- send him my best -- Harry autographed my book -- ouch!

Groden can't speak for himself? How convenient I do have a few questions for him, he still expensive?

BMwrote:

This appears to be another instance of the simple minded leading the blind.

[...]

Your getting ballsey these days young fella, you looking to buy a piece of this place too? LOL

'Len Colby'

I find Costello, David Healey and Dr. Mantik all compelling.

Impossible head snaps, disappearing blood spray, this is a doctored film.

Frame by frame enlarged and retouched and refilmed................

Which Costello are you talking about, Lou, Frank or Elvis? LOL! John Costella makes think of comedy too but more along the lines of Jarry and Ionesco than slapstick.

The blood spray argument was throughly debunked in the forum by some one who, unlike the high school science teacher, knew what she was talking about. It's hard to believe anyone esp. a person with a PhD in physics couldn't figure out that blood splatter would be accelerated by a high velocity bullet! How could the Australian DoD hire this guy?

Shanet is that concept to hard to comprehend?

_____________

As the interface between Roland Zavada Ray Fielding i have to ask if you're still up to the task? Or shall I contact them and find out how the rewrite is coming along ---

btw, what's a moron like you criticizing a high school teacher for? You forget just what forum your posting to? Perhaps your handlers are giving you a bit more room to freelance? Attempting to disgrace a teacher on the Education Forum -- what a dunce!

Get that JFK Researcher/Investagator tag under your name, I think you've qualified -- take it all in lurkers .... lmfao

WOW! When you can't wow the educated ones, dump useless information on top of them anbd hope for the best, huh?

LMAO keep coming back champ, you'll get it right, YET!

There that signature block again, you should be ashamed of yourself...

_______________________

The blood spray argument was throughly debunked in the forum by some one who, unlike the high school science teacher, knew what she was talking about. It's hard to believe anyone esp. a person with a PhD in physics couldn't figure out that blood splatter would be accelerated by a high velocity bullet! How could the Australian DoD hire this guy?

Shanet is that concept to hard to comprehend?

Len, Shanet is a prime example of that cult-like mentality that I mentioned in my previous response. I went to a lot of trouble to try and lay some of the evidence before him that he and other alterationist supporters never even considered, let alone tested to see if it would explain the artifacts and annomolies they describe, yet all he had to say was, "I find Costello, David Healey and Dr. Mantik all compelling. Impossible head snaps, disappearing blood spray, this is a doctored film. Frame by frame enlarged and retouched and refilmed................" Shanet didn't address a damned thing that was handed to him and the reason is quite simple IMO - he doesn't understand the topic that is being discussed, he doesn't want to understand it, and he is satisfied having others do his thinking for him even in the light that has shown that his thinkers didn't have all the bases covered before drawing their conclusions. For instance, all David Healy has done is tell us that mattes can be made - not that they were made to the Zapruder film. Healy, himself says he has never seen anything so far that proves the Zapruder film was faked. Yet someone like Shanet doesn't care if his assertions are based on scientific and factual data - he just wants to tell people the Zapruder film is altered. Unless people like Shanet are going to learn the subject matter and conduct a responsible inquiry of their own so they can logically and rationally address the evidence, then they cannot be taken seriously. Shanet's half-assed three sentenced generic reply in response #25 told me loud and clear that he views this site not as an educational forum, but rather nothing more than a meeting place for his fellow cult members. If anyone thinks I'm joking, then go back a few post and read again where Shanet posted, "So explain the first forty frames where the upper right hand area of the Z film is fuzz/matte ........... where the jail is supposed to be......" The fact that Shanet was dead wrong about the location of the jail and that even a modern camera didn't offer a better image of the area of the Criminal Records Building that he spoke about - he still never acknowledged his error over that being proof of alteration.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

'Len Colby' inked:

[...]

For what ever it's worth Fetzer is now claiming that Costella works for the Australian Dept. of Defense. I doubt they would give him security clearence let alone a job and all the secrecy is suspicious. I wonder if the job is like those held by Walter Mitty and John Nash. But if it's true by your own logic he is longer credible.

______________

ahh what would you know about security clearences, Len? Not nervous are ya?

'Bill Miller' wrote:

nada, zip...

there you have it Lurkers -- when it comes to defending Zapruder film authenticity, absolutely nothing from Miller, AGAIN! -- you're in over your head, Bill. You do have something going for you, it's called comic relief...

Experts? ROFLMFAO....what experts have you consulted? Whoops, your the expert, right.....?