David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
'Bill Miller quotes below'
[...]
"David, I looked through your response and as usual you didn't address anything .... I assume because other than optical printing ... you haven't bothered to learn anything about the composition of Kodachrome II film. I also imagine that it was you lurking on Lancer's forum and not someone sending you an email of my remarks for the simple reason that you have never shown one once of an ability to address the points I have made, thus why would someone want your opinion over something you have not shown any knowledge of? Also, the term I used was "stereoscopy viewing" and not "rotoscoping"."
this answers questions regarding your vast knowledge and comment about film processing and composing???? roflmao! -- Don't quit your day job champ....
"You are aware of stereoscopy viewing - right? Groden has done it with the Zapruder film, Mack and White, as well. One can use it with any of the Zapruder film frames and if someone has added a painted image to the film, then it will appear to float above the underlining image when viewed with this process. Didn't Mantik use this same technique when looking at the autopsy photos and that was how he came to the conclusion that they were forged ... I believe so!"
Examples, Bill, show the lurkers AND me -- no more bullshxt....I imagine Groden has done many things with the 35mm print of Zapruder film, then some.... You ask Dr. Mantik, I don't do X-Ray's, after all he's the M.D. and a Ph.D! Your not claiming that expertise these day's are you?
dgh asked: "Have you EVER compared *ALTERED* 8mm Kodachrome II film with unaltered 8mm Kodachrome II film? Has ANYONE made the comparison? -- A cite if the test has been performed...."
"As I said above ... there is a way of testing it. I personally have not examined the Zapruder film under the stereoscopy viewing technique, but those who have did not see any signs of alteration. Maybe you'd like to give it a go and see what you come up with."
why dodging (pardon the pun) commenting about emulsion comparisons between altered Kodacolor II 8mm film and non-altered Kodacolor II 8mm film, Bill? What don't you understand about that? Have you done or witnessed same? Or shall we just assume this is more wishful thinking on the Lone Neuter side of the equation
dgh asked"Are you sure you read Fetzer's book HOAX?"
"Yes, I read it just as you did and both of us are on record afterwards saying that we have seen no proof of alteration ... so what's your point other than showing your Baghdad Bob Healy side."
Oh Bill, you did? Guess you forgot I expertly crafted about 30 or so pages in it, I even read the damn thing -- cover to cover, TWICE. What's that prove? Don't know other than comments from the likes of Harrison Livingstone, who lioke my down to earth homey style.... rofl!
dgh asked: And what does the following mean? "It is like having someone say that a stone appeared to have been thrown through a glass window without so much as even breaking the glass..."
Are you really so dense that you don't know what I implied? It is one thing to assert that something might have happed, but it is another when investigated and no proof was found to substantiate the assertion. The glass window is the Zapruder film and you are attempting to assert that a rock may have been thrown through the glass window while at the same time admitting that the glass remains unbroken and this is why you now have the nickname "Baghdad Bob Healy". Your double talk is irresponsible and shows your motive for making such say-nothing responses on what is supposed to be an education forum.
ROFL -- hey guy, look at it this way ...
I'm a professional compositor and your excuse these day's? That aside doing what I do, let's expand on your "rock dealie"... You live in a glass house, floor, ceiling and walls -- your looking at a picture of same structure and you can see all panels, there's a rock in the middle of the floor, one that takes up about 5% of the 2D space -- you have no idea how it got there. No broken windows AND the glass structure was not *built* around the rock.... How'd that rock get there?
I know, do you?
Oh! Anymore lawsuits settled in your favor, lately, lately I heard all about those, too!
Motive? those that suggest motive should not live in "glass houses"! Btw, you setting this forums posting criteria here these day's? I'm sure JSimkin will appreciate that....
Double talk? Get with the program Bill, no more little .giffy's, get specific -- apply your recently learned Photshop expertise to 8mm Kodacolor II film emulsion comparisons... , you're not going to have Zavada's expertise forever and you certainly need his and RFieldings.....
if you need a PSfilm plugin, I'm sure I can write one for your side..... you guy's are too much -- roflmao!
David
Bill
-
BMiller wrote elsewhere recently
[...]
You strongly maintain a very long standing point? You have no point! You are trying to claim that an alteration took place in 1963/64 to not just any film, but Kodachrome II film, that cannot even be accomplished today in the year 2006. You cite the IMPOSSIBLE in order to make what your are saying appear logical and that is illogical IMO. The Zapruder film is made up of several layers of emulsion grains and you are basically stating that someone painted an image onto that film (I assume with a microscope and a paint brush the size of the point on a sewing needle) and somehow painted it under those grains ... that is absurd and shows that you have not bothered to even investigate the possibility of such a feat. And if that is not bad enough, Zapruder frames were published in the Newspaper within days following the assassination and the same images are still seen on the Zapruder film as we know it. So not only are you trying to make a case for an 'impossibility' to have occurred, you are implying that the alleged alteration was done to frames all the way up to around Z362 which still shows the bone plate. You are also suggesting that not only did someone paint an image under the emulsion grain, which is an impossible thing to do, but they also did it to such perfection as to create the exact degree of motion and panning blur that occurred between each film frame which can be scientically and mathematically tested. I guess we will never agree on this matter for I refuse to allow myself to be pulled down to such a level of incompetence. It is like having someone say that a stone appeared to have been thrown through a glass window without so much as even breaking the glass ....... or like saying because someone saw a ship sail over the horizon that people who think the world is flat must be correct. The whole thing becomes so totally ridiculous in lieu of the total evidence that its not even worth further consideration.
I am sorry if this reply seems harsh, but I know of no other way to express the reality of the evidence and to point out the mistake that is being made by the alteration supporters when they do not first investigate all the other avenues to see if they were even available in this case. You may recall a poster once being critical of the limo driver for not just traveling on out Houston Street instead of turning onto Elm. I had to smile because this individual didn't seem to know that not only was there a line of people standing across the north side of the intersection blocking any path without people being run over, but Houston also dead ended a few hundred feet beyond the TSBD. So some ideas may sound interesting upon first hearing them, but are soon discovered to be dead ends upon further investigation. The alteration of the Zapruder film is just one of them.
Bill
___________________
Hey Bill Miller
... this was foward to me this morning. The majority of the post appears same ole BM nonsense and immaterial, the remainder of the post (above) is *material* -- what kind of nonsense are you spreading around the net --- do you think Roland Zavada feels matte painting was performed direct to 8mm film???
you wrote to CB:
start
"... You have no point! You are trying to claim that an alteration took place in 1963/64 to not just any film, but Kodachrome II film, that cannot even be accomplished today in the year 2006."
end
Have you EVER compared *ALTERED* 8mm Kodachrome II film with unaltered 8mm Kodachrome II film? Has ANYONE made the comparison? -- A cite if the test has been performed....
Do you understand matte painting AND glass painting...? Might check with Ray Fielding for a definition -- he sure knows, you know the guy the giving Roland Zavada a hand with his presentation or redo of the Zavada report -- you have read: HOAX of the Century: Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film by Harrison Livingstone
Are you sure you read Fetzer's book HOAX?
Are you sure you understand film emulsion?
The impossible happened in Dallas....
You say you know Groden -- have him define rotoscoping, your sawing a limb off behind you, and
Who tested the Z-frames scientifically for "blur" and where are the detailed findings located and WHO verified same findings? You guys FINALLY find a Physicist, I certainly hope so been what, 5 years now?
And what does the following mean? "It is like having someone say that a stone appeared to have been thrown through a glass window without so much as even breaking the glass..."
huh? You starting to see things in trees, AGAIN?
The temperature is....? lmao
David
-
Len Colby wrote:
[...]
If you accept Jack’s suggestion that the 757 parts were planted, explain how that could have been done without anybody noticing.
perhaps the same way no one noticed a plane hitting the pentagon?
Also this explanation is not compatible with this rationalization of eyewitness testimony of a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon.
so that we on the CT side of the JFK murder understand: eye witness testimony regarding terrorist attack is acceptable, whereas eye witness testimony regarding the murder of a sitting US president [JFK assassination] is questioned? That about sum it up?
Determing Lone Neuter logic is daunting to say the least
[...]
-
Evan Burton wrote:
[...]
You have to try an accept it - unless you can provide PROOF to the contrary - a B757 hit the Pentagon. Two airliners hit the WTC and caused their collapse. The onus is on YOU to provide verifiable alternative scenerios.
Two airliners DID hit the World Trade Towers, CNN video showed me and the rest of the world that - I haven't seen any video/film showing a plane going into the Pentagon -- does it exist?
If we talk about 'did the US Government orchestrate the attacks', then that is an entirely different matter. I don't believe it, but it is a far more defensible position. In that case, you can agree with the physical evidence; it is only the motive that becomes contentious.
P.S. Don't forget to send the $1000 to Andy & John.
-
Little sideline regarding the photo:
Couch is using a 3 lens turret, Bell and Howell FILMO 70, 16mm camera... one of the toughest cameras built. They're STILL used in commercial film production (16 and 35mm). Primarily as crash cameras... single and double perf. Most models can run at, I believe 4,8,10,16,24,48fps, some models will do 'single' frame animation.
A double 8mm version was available, smaller than Zapruder's B&H 414 camera, but again, heavier.
It's bigger brother the EYEMO, is 35mm, both formats at full wind will run for 20-24 seconds uninterrupted -- basic camera [Couch's) uses 100' rolls. Certain models were adapted for use with 400' magazines. The camera can be and has been modified for single frame cell animation.
The FILMO 16mm/EYEMO 35mm or EYMO have a very long operating history with the USArmy Signal corps, dating back to WW2 -- The cameras were used in the big three networks [ABC, NBC, CBS] in Vietnam. Prior to the introduction of RCA's TK-76 handheld video camera...
The camera is no larger than Zapruders B&H414 double 8mm, it is however, much heaver -- the camera is NOT reflex, you obtain a sight picture thru a side viewfinder next to the taking lens, no auto focusing... NO sound....
DHealy
-
I believe Sobel did a Black Ops interview last year, if thats correct, it'll be in their archive.... interviews run at least a hour, some two.
Google Black Ops Radio (internet)
In 2004 Mark Sobel produced a film entitled The Commission, which was slated to appear at art film theatres in various locations. To the best of my knowledge, it is not available on DVD.The film was shot entirely in black and white and features many well know actors. A viewing the clips available at the link posted below (highly recommended) indicates to me the film appears to be powerful and accurate in its depiction of problems that faced the Warren Commission.
If anyone has seen this, I would be interested in their impressions. The following is an excerpt from the film's website:
"I wanted the audience to feel as though I'd edited together previously unseen newsreel film shot in 1964 that I'd discovered collecting dust in a top secret vault." --- the filmmaker
THE COMMISSION
In the aftermath of the brutal assassination of US President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, 7 Americans of "unimpeachable" integrity were selected by US President Lyndon B. Johnson to report to the American public on all of the facts regarding the assassination, "as far as they can be known". At the end of the term of "The President's Commission," (known unofficially as "The Warren Commission"), all transcripts of the secret meetings of the 7 Commissioners were originally classified as TOP SECRET for 75 years, to have remained sealed from the public until the year 2039!
Through the legal challenges of private citizens over a period of years, these transcripts were gradually declassified without publicity or fanfare. Never published for the public at large, the many hundreds of pages of verbatim discussion have languished within the US National Archives for 40 years --- largely forgotten by history, awaiting a reader. "THE COMMISSION" takes the audience behind those closed doors to discover why US National Security demanded that the matter remain Top Secret for 75 years. What unfolds will doubtless shock many. Some may become angered. Some will cry. And afterwards, our view of the integrity of "the greatest murder investigation in the history of the world" will never again be the same.
With a distinguished cast lead by Academy Award winner Martin Landau, Academy Award Nominee Sam Waterston, and Golden Globe Winner Martin Sheen.
Also starring 7-time Emmy Winner Ed Asner, Joe Don Baker, Corbin Bernsen, Lloyd Bochner, Stephen Collins, Henry Gibson and Alex McArthur, "THE COMMISSION" depicts a complex character study of 7 men of great political power and influence. More than history, "THE COMMISSION" is a powerful commentary on the integrity of the Political and Justice System both today, and well into the foreseeable future. Every American, regardless of age, should see this film --- "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Although Arthur Miller's play "THE CRUCIBLE" was, on the surface, about an injustice in the distant past, the play was actually a commentary on political injustice at the time of its writing. Similarly, with more Commissions going on in Washington today than at any time in recent memory, "THE COMMISSION" tells a story that is more relevant today than ever.
Permission is granted to quote from all or part of the synopsis in articles and reviews.
-
We wouldn't want our Lone Nutter friends to think we ignorant of the playing field .... here it is from the horses mouth....
comments welcome from my dear friends Bill Miller, Len Colby and Craig Lamson - gentlemen! (hint: 3b&4b sure look familiar, such wonderful advice!)
___________________________________
CIA Document 1035-960
Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
CIA Document #1035-960
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.
e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.
f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
-
'Bill Miller'
David, must I keep reminding you that you have seen the alteration site, just as you read "TGZFH" book and yet you claimed that you have seen no proof of alteration ... so why push a site that obviously didn't convince you?
You have missed your calling as a politician because you are pretty good at playing both sides of the fence.
what are you whinning about now? -- you bounce around like a puppet on a string.... course we're all familiar with LONE NUTTER dodging and weaving, especially when the going gets rough....but don't let that slow you down
-
Bill Miller wrote:
I don't know about following Jack all over the Internet, but when have you ever said anything that was accurate.
well, we know all about who follows jack all over the internet, appears to a lot of us, you lead the pack, why is that?
I went to the looney forum because Jack asked me to. Up to the point where I was forced to leave there ... Jack had praised my work and Fetzer had asked me to speak at his conference. It was only at the 11th hour when I spoke up about the mistakes in Jack's claims is when all that changed.
well, that's not quite the way more than a few of us remember it -- but I'll leave that up to you to explain
This is the second and only forum I have belonged to where Jack post and I am here at John Simkin's invitation, so once again you do not know the facts, but what is new!
Where's what? You and Jack post? I could careless whether JSimkin invited you here, he did me too, so what? The issue is attacking Jack, this thread is a prime example, you weren't addressed. Nevertheless you start right in on him... There a fixxation complex going on here?
And what about Jack's critics .... you are the new poster boy for being critical of Jack's claims.
Jesus, Miller. You forget who got you started on these boards? We haven't!
You have heard all he has said, you certainly read the book "The Great Zapruder film Hoax" and yet you have posted on this forum that you have not seen anything that proves there was alteration.
Proves alteration? Certainly, the film could of been altered. Need to see and test the alledged in-camera Zapruder original. Unless you've had someone holding your hand, you sure haven't had the Z-film tested... So how would you know it wasn't altered? Gary tell you so? .gif animations prove nothing -- then of course, there's a little thing called film/photo provenance -- hell of a stumbling block for what you post -- but if you post-by-the-ton, I guess you can convince others it wasn't altered.... BTW, what's taking Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding so long? I think I know
The only difference in your position and mine is that I go the extra mile to show what mistakes Jack made.
You paid buy the mile, or gross internet post tonnage?
Doesn't President Kennedy's murder investigation deserve a thorough and indepth study of the evidence - I think so even if you do not.
pretty quick now only a few will be paying attention to the photo side of the investigation -- the JFKennedy assassination certainly has been studied, the problem as I see it, its been a longtime since the evidence was studied, all the way back to pre-Warren Commission day's (it was studied then, too)
Bill - I own three cars - so what!
you got the point, finally. Thanks
-
Bill Miller' wrote:
[...]
This type of criticism is nothing new to you for it dates back to the looney forum days. One would think that when a shotty way of illustrating a point is b rought to light that you would want to do everything possible to keep that from being said about your work, but not you! You continually make the same shooty mistakes over and over and hen act like you're being picked on. As a seasoned researcher - don't you feel an obligation to be more thorough and set an example for others by promoting responsible research practices.
____________
what's NOT new is about 10 individuals have followed Jack White all over the internet the past few years, actually i think a few have made Jack a fulltime career... but, we know that, don't we? I think lurkers have figured it out...
When one needs to post a signature block with "researcher" below ones name, ehh, speaks volumes --
David Healy
Driver - I own a car
-
'Bill Miller' wrote
[...]
Jack, you mentioned the looney forum (JFK Research) and how some of us were booted from it ... the entire research community knows that it was only people who disagreed with you on the alteraion claims you were making who were the ones forced to leave. Tell the readers how you cannot get a gig at Copa or Lancer anymore since you started implementing some of the sloppiest research that has led to some of the most absurd claims ever to enter the picture concerning JFK's assassination.
[...]
**********************
Hey Bill, wear your ouster from JFKResearch as a badge, you were outed -- so move on.
Travel on over to alt.conspiracy.jfk -- many oldtime CTer's are being outed, as we speak... they're Lone Neuter's hiding out in CT clothing have been for a looooonnnnggggg time.... guess what, some of THOSE were booted from JFKResearch before you even knew what a negative was ... so rest easy, some here know the game...
And who wants a gig, anywhere? What do you think this is, American IDOL?
ahhwhen was the last time you did anything for a television camera, that aired in a town with a population over 500? Surely, you've garnered a little tv time? Jack surely has, all over the place...
-
Kinda tough to swallow isn't it? There are those that just don't buy the WC story, nor certain segments of the
Zapruder film... course if you discount eyewitness testimony, especially testimony from Parkland MD's who treated JFK -- only then would you have a leg to stand defending the Z-film...
So what you 'guess' was addressed, remains a open question.... After all these years I've never heard anyone ask, "...what should of been in the Z-film?" Its alway's, "so, who shot him from the front...?
Not lack of knowledge as you profess, just common sense, champ!
David, are you not capable of writing anything other than a few say-nothing disjointed sentences? How many times do I have to remind you that "YOU" have not seen anything that proves photo and film alteration, so why are you wasting my time. I don't buy the WC story either and I spend a great deal of time researching and creating clips to show the viewer why I say what I do. However, to date, as you also have acknowledged, no one has shown any proof that the Zapruder film is altered. I've heard people say that there should be bullets seen flying through the air in the Zfilm - details of the avulsed bones in the hair on the back of JFK's head should be seen - and so on ... but it is their lack of knowledge of the camera Zapruder used, as well as the type of film Z used that prevented him from capturing such details.
And what common sense are you talking about ... because what ever it is - it never demonstrated to you that the Zfilm had been altered because that is what you have said to this forum. Your disjointed ramblings appear to be double talking ... so any time you decide to present a case for alteration, expect to be thorough about it and to have your own words come back and bite you on the rear.
Bill
BMiller, Miller, Miller -- you provide endless comedy for those of us that have been around since you showed up... so, what's to debate? When you can tell me you've viewed and documented any JFK related first generation film or photo, with an affidavit, we'll have something to talk about -- till then you post nothing but o-p-i-n-i-o-n concerning same -- your letting your fans go to your head -- we KNOW better.....
-
BM wrote
[...]
I guess when this was addressed in the past that all that was said was understood, but I see that was not the case. I am constantly hearing questions raised about what should have been seen on the Zapruder film and in each instance it is a lack of knowledge as to the natural causes that leads one to jump straight to film alteration.
[...]
Kinda tough to swallow isn't it? There are those that just don't buy the WC story, nor certain segments of the
Zapruder film... course if you discount eyewitness testimony, especially testimony from Parkland MD's who treated JFK -- only then would you have a leg to stand defending the Z-film...
So what you 'guess' was addressed, remains a open question.... After all these years I've never heard anyone ask, "...what should of been in the Z-film?" Its alway's, "so, who shot him from the front...?
Not lack of knowledge as you profess, just common sense, champ!
-
'Craig Lamson' wrote:
[...]
Any "photo expert" worth his salt ...
No, a "photo expert" that was worth his salt ( that leaves you out again) [...]
___________________
guess its about time to ask where ALL these photo experts ARE that you theorize about? All this noise you spout, what I see from you in particular is undeclared "opinion", IOW, empty bandwidth -- get those so-called "phot/film experts" over here, have 'em bring their credentials, too!
If there's consistency between the Nix/Zapruder films, then after three + years, why haven't we seen a motion presentation displaying such? Should be a piece of cake... then again, high technology has a tendency to throw film purists off a bit....
Blah blah balh. I'm here, my credentials are well know. I am a photo expert. My statements can be proven emperically. Want anything else poser?
Now you on the other hand claim many decades as an imaging professional. So show us what you know. Throw your hat into the ring on this very claim from your friend White. But if all you have to offer is your guard dog routine, you might as well just stfu because you are nothing but white noise....
when it comes to you delivering ANYTHING we know what to expect NOTHING!
have a nice life -- PRO whatever.... LOL
-
John Dolva wrote
[...]
The limousine drifts away from the kerb and accelerates.
Before Kennedy is shot in the head, he is turning his head towards Jackie.
His body is also tilting towards her.
If one looks at the top of his head one can see that when shot, his head tilts towards the camera and dips down and up again.
dgh: does your above suggest a shot from the right front?
Then there are some movements indicating perhaps reflexes or a second shot.
Then as the limousine starts to accelerate and the seat springs recoil his body moves up and when the accelerating limousine reaches where his body is, the back rest of the rear seat 'catches kennedy and his body is propelled forward.
His head swivels backwards and hits the top of the seat and rebounds.
His body returns to the seat, depresses the seat springs again bounces once and and he collapses towards Jackie.
-
'Craig Lamson' wrote:
[...]
Any "photo expert" worth his salt ...
No, a "photo expert" that was worth his salt ( that leaves you out again) [...]
___________________
guess its about time to ask where ALL these photo experts ARE that you theorize about? All this noise you spout, what I see from you in particular is undeclared "opinion", IOW, empty bandwidth -- get those so-called "phot/film experts" over here, have 'em bring their credentials, too!
If there's consistency between the Nix/Zapruder films, then after three + years, why haven't we seen a motion presentation displaying such? Should be a piece of cake... then again, high technology has a tendency to throw film purists off a bit....
-
BS....!
have I been giving Bill and associates too much credit?
Clue: forget about Z-313, there a much better sync point re NIX and Zapruder.
Is it surprising we've never seen a merging of ALL Dealey Plaza motion films into one coherent presentation? Proving each film supports the others? Been nearly four years in the making...
You'd do better Bill if you'd followed your own instincts...
An exercise in futility, unless of course you can provide us with evidence AND proof the Z-camera ran at 18.3 frames a second, surely the FBI has the data AND DP re-enactment films used to determine that very special figure, yes? THEN you can give us the NIX technical data.
18.5fps --- how was that frame rate determined and by who?
-
Colby penned:
[...]
I asked Al, but of course anyone can answer, however I hope that only people who have some specific knowledge will offer their opinions. Others please inicated what experience / knowledge you answers are based on.
[...]
hmmm "... experience/knowledge your answers are based on." Why do I find that qualifier a joke coming from you?
-
Robin,
The man in the center of that carpark image looks like he's wearing some kind of military uniform, though I have no idea what branch. (Peaked cap, blue jacket, khaki pants?)
Ron
Khaki pants in November? Never happen -- Khaki anything in the US military [stateside] is summer wear. Blue coat over khaki pants -- NOT a military uniform in '63
-
Len, have you not heard Baghdad Bob's latest claim ...
March 28, 2006
"David Healy always addresses the issues and does not merely make moronic say-nothing replies in order to try and cover-up his lack of forethough concerning possible Zapruder film alteration."
you have demonstrated to me and others competent in the photographic arts, that you have ANY clue about photography in general or compositing specifically -- its no surprise to me you can't document now, or in the past, photo expertise.
Not a vote of confidence for Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding.
Forget about Len, he's late, you guy's really have to get your schedules down pat -- you're so predicatable, its funny. For that sake -- he's in the same league as a few others, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, either....
-
You're right. Many people have been known to die from DHMO.
And there has been found to be noticable traces of it in rainwater!
I think it should be banned!
Unfortunately there are a lot of stupid people out their who probably take that site seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't cause a few people to write (or e-mail) their congressmen or if Jack White cites it someday!!
where you been, you're 15 minutes late! LOL
-
sounds like a silly ole fart making like a photog, foisting away the winter, in the dear old midwest... Get a life Lamson, you've no excuse explaining the rigors of photo manipulation to anyone.... well on second thought, get brushed up in 35mm compositing -- maybe Ray Fielding will give you quickie seminar so you don't make an ass out of yourself...
NODAL point? that sounds like something you'd lance, that on someones rearend or a tripod? LOL
and if you haven't rolled a CP16 -- sit down, you're beyond redemption trailer boy....
Hey Baghdad Bob Healy ... just address the issues and save the stupid say-nothing replies for another forum.
What are you drinking Miller? Back on that Dr. Pepper, again.... careful there Sonnyboy -- Groden ready to come to your rescue?
So, ah, Miller -- so we're squared away on one issue, you support (through your 10 thousand internet posts) the current photo record as it stands regarding the films of Dealey Plaza, YES?
If your going to be taking pot shots at someone regarding these films we're gonna have to know your expertise in photo matters -- Being a cheapshot artist you gonna have to pay your dues, especially if you expect to be recognized when it gets down to the nitty-gritty - don't-cha-know...
I can sympathize, I know its tough keeping the interest up, isn't it? You guy's don't have much to say when the varsity is in town do ya?
"Baghdad Bob Healy..." what are you doing making fun of ones military background? Bad taste champ! Typical, no class! Probably not even a veteran..... LOL
-
The guard dog barked:
"dgh01: good gosh man, did this thought ever occur to you: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? Don't want to get too eserteric on you.... or does the thought make you nervous I mean after all, he's a real live Physicist ON-THE-RECORD."
Yea he's on the record showing just how stupid a Physicist can be. This guy you champion can't figure out how a camera works. It's the height of sillyness to see him try and fool the masses into thinking he can just manipulate a few images taken from different camera positions and make them appear to be taken from the same len axis. What a moron!
Of course if it was possible it would make millions of professional photographers who do high end pano's very happy because we go to great lengths and considerable expence to rotate our cameras on on the nodal point of the lens lest we create images where the frames don't match where they overlap.
The funny thing is that no amount of computer manipulation can fix frames that have been rotated outside of the nodal point, a simple fact of the process. But Costella is trying to hoodwink the willing CT"s with his BS. What a guy. And you buy it too. Just how stupid are you David?
You need a new champion David, this one makes you look very foolish...oh sorry, you have always looked very foolish.
and the pussycat meowed:
Millions of professional photog's? Pano's (for the lurkers; pano=panorama photograph) there may be millions who know what the term means, I doubt many know how to shoot one....! But, with software of the day....
Buy, just what do I have to buy? Stay on point champ - I guess you didn't ask him either.....
That the same nodal point Ray Fielding describes in his excellent book on Special Effects Cinematography, Craig? You read that book, too?
You show an amazing amount of ignorance for someone who claims to have spent years in the imaging business. Maybe you are just a poser after all.
In any case, you you were actually smart enough to understand, there is no software to fix pano frames that have been rotated at some point outer than the nodal point. At best the the current software can only mask the bad frames by doing unsightly blends in the effected areas. You would know this if you actually had any expertise at all. Seems you don't. I guess they did'nt teach you this stuff while shooting fluff as a local tv news cameraman eh "mr. optical printer"?
Of course what the "scientists" of tgzfh, (yea thats a laugh!) failed to understand (or perhaps they did and were just trying to shine everyone on) was that Costellas "gotta ya" proof was a failure because he blew it when the said he could normalize the two zapruder frames and them compare them directly. Too bad he did'nt take the time to research something as simple as nodial point rotation before he made himself look like a total fool and a nutjob. Oh wait, he did THAT first with the rain sensors...ROFLMAO!
sounds like a silly ole fart making like a photog, foisting away the winter, in the dear old midwest... Get a life Lamson, you've no excuse explaining the rigors of photo manipulation to anyone.... well on second thought, get brushed up in 35mm compositing -- maybe Ray Fielding will give you quickie seminar so you don't make an ass out of yourself...
NODAL point? that sounds like something you'd lance, that on someones rearend or a tripod? LOL
and if you haven't rolled a CP16 -- sit down, you're beyond redemption trailer boy....
-
The people the govt hires to combat the truth are SO OBVIOUS!
Instead of infiltrating and blending in, the stick out like sore thumbs.
Instead of originating research and discussing a VARIETY of topics,
they only post messages ATTACKING ONE PERSON or ONE SUBJECT
that they are assigned to harrass. They are not interested in JFK.
They never post any research...only vilification of anyone who
promotes truth.
The same ones show up on forum after forum, attacking the same
people and the same facts...mindlessly, over and over. It must
be a boring job.
Check it out.
Jack
You owe me a new keyboard Jack, I spewed diet coke out my nose after I read your latest nutjob post.
You know I think there are medical people that might be able to help you, check it out.
talk about nutjobs -- doubt diet-coke will help ... lmao!
The people the govt hires to combat the truth are SO OBVIOUS!Instead of infiltrating and blending in, the stick out like sore thumbs.
Instead of originating research and discussing a VARIETY of topics,
they only post messages ATTACKING ONE PERSON or ONE SUBJECT
that they are assigned to harrass. They are not interested in JFK.
They never post any research...only vilification of anyone who
promotes truth.
The same ones show up on forum after forum, attacking the same
people and the same facts...mindlessly, over and over. It must
be a boring job.
Check it out.
Jack
Jack,
you don't think Lamson actually works for the government do you? If so, we're in pretty tough shape..
BM testing the waters re RZavada update?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David G. Healy
BillM wrote:
[...]
Yes, any amatuer could do it, but at the same time - any expert who knows what to look for could detect the alteration. And yes, Costella may know a little about photography, but he is no expert for if he was, he would have addressed the types of problems that Groden and others were quick to point out. Costella didn't mention them because he either withheld damaging information to his position or he was unaware of the other problems ... you can choose which ever excuse sounds better to you.
Why not get Groden in here? I don't have a PhD, don't need one! Damn sure know Groden doesn't have one -- Groden's had a pass for way too long -- are there some here that understand why he doesn't participate? Why are you covering for him? Good enough for Zavada to take a relook, why not Groden to defend his work, or at least work YOU say he, Groden performed....
Where is Groden's spectroskopy work located, or whatever it's called these days? I'm sure the lurkers are interested and curious....
Groden pointed it out, fine..... Get him in here, let's get down to it!
********************
'Jack White' wrote:
Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made!
It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!
Nobody but a dunce would think that!
There are numerous ways of doing film alteration, but none involves making altertions
directly on film. Kodachrome is no different than other films in this respect.
Most processes involve COPYING, MATTING, GLASS PAINTING, SOFT MATTES, TRAVELING
MATTES, LOW CONTRAST FILMS, OPTICAL PRINTERS, RECOPYING...and a host of other
techniques of which Miller has no understanding.
After Effect 7.0 will give him a jump start, Jack. Then reading a little film compositing history, he'll finally get 2+2 to equal 4, instead of 14... Then he can debate compositing, till then -- he's noise! All of them are!
But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,
would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS
DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA,
USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about
500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist.
Any amateur could have done this. It is basic copystand work. Check anyone who
knows anything about movies, and they will verify the above.
Complicating it somewhat were the intrasprocket images...but Costella explains that
nicely.
Jack