David G. Healy

might call the 6th floor Museum. the Zapruder family donated one of the three original optical prints to the museum -- evidently when we, the American citizenry paid 16million dollars for the original - we forgot to include in the deal, the Z-film copyright -- how convenient... The Zapruder family still controls use of the Z-film imagery through their front, the 6th Floor Museum. As for Moorman imagery, the 6th floor has that too! I doubt Mary talks to anyone without the blessings of The Sixth Floor Museum

'Bill Miller' wrote: Craig, technically you are correct... [...] ____________ now who the hell cares whether he's 'technically' correct or not? Does one think alterationsist gave a damn if anybody found out about film alteration, after-the-fact? 40+ years AFTER the fact? IF any film/photo alteration job was performed, it DID, in fact, THE job; the WC did not argue the SBT as baseless - therefore, any argument against Z-film alteration is a waste of time .... end of story...

Lee...as I have explained dozens of times, I did not use "photographic enlargement techniques" to bring out badgeman. All I did was simply bracket exposures. I did no darkroom manipulation at all. It was simple in-camera bracketing, much as you might bracket a landscape scene for best exposure. Here again are my bracketed negs. On the fence area by the tree, I did weeks of work on that area WITHOUT RESULTS, which is why you have not seen everything I did. It was INCONCLUSIVE. Jack What a line of crap Jack. "badgeman' is about .3mm on the original moorman polaroid. You post some exposures that show that area of the moorman at 24mm x 36mm and you tell the world that you did not use "photographic enlargment techniques"? ROFLMAO! Now that is just pure disinformation...or pure bullxxxx. You choose. looks like the old WANKER-yanker found a way out of the snow - hopefully he'll be able to follow the bouncing ball and read the entire thread -- hell, we don't even know if this guy owns a camera, much less has "darkroom experience"..... that's okay Oh, what's GaryM have to say about Badgeman these day's? Been reading the Zavada report lately? LOL! David...Lampoon's modus operandi is to use hair-splitting definitions to confuse the unknowing. If I crop a photo, he calls it a photographic enlargement technique. If I use a long lens for magnification, he calls it alteration. If I bracket exposures to get optimal tones, he calls it alteration. If I increase or decrease contrast or brightness, he calls it manipulation. If I use a strobe light to intensify lighting, he says I am changing the image. All of the above are methods of properly studying photo images. To imply otherwise indicates ignorance...or an agenda. The unsophticated lay person is taken in by his "expertise". Jack evidently Jack, he believes is film/photo alteration.... how quaint!

Lee...as I have explained dozens of times, I did not use "photographic enlargement techniques" to bring out badgeman. All I did was simply bracket exposures. I did no darkroom manipulation at all. It was simple in-camera bracketing, much as you might bracket a landscape scene for best exposure. Here again are my bracketed negs. On the fence area by the tree, I did weeks of work on that area WITHOUT RESULTS, which is why you have not seen everything I did. It was INCONCLUSIVE. Jack What a line of crap Jack. "badgeman' is about .3mm on the original moorman polaroid. You post some exposures that show that area of the moorman at 24mm x 36mm and you tell the world that you did not use "photographic enlargment techniques"? ROFLMAO! Now that is just pure disinformation...or pure bullxxxx. You choose. looks like the old WANKER-yanker found a way out of the snow - hopefully he'll be able to follow the bouncing ball and read the entire thread -- hell, we don't even know if this guy owns a camera, much less has "darkroom experience"..... that's okay Oh, what's GaryM have to say about Badgeman these day's? Been reading the Zavada report lately? LOL!

nice summation, Robert

Nevertheless, it is always interesting when conservatives raise the cry against the "liberal media." What does all that mean? That the "conservatives" who control the media are "liberal" compared to the conservatives they "undermine;" that the conservatives raising the cry are trying to blame "liberals" who really aren't liberals, but rather other conservatives (a "right-wing conspiracy to blame the Communists," to put it in another context); that "liberals" truly do control the media, but aren't liberal enough for "true" liberals and are therefore "conservatives;" that this is a case where you truly can "have it both ways" ... or what?If the "conservatives" truly "run" the mass media, then why do the conservatives rail against the "liberal" media? Conversely, why do liberals (for whom the media is supposedly writing) decry the conservative bias - and ownership - of media outlets? Does it make sense to anybody? If you're a card carrying Republ-o-crat, of course it makes sense, all of it!

follow the bouncing ball, Bill....

UPDATE Sat, March 4th 2006 I'm progressing this side of the topic-question, expect to post in the near future. And no, I'm not waiting for Rollie to post first. Not sure how Mr. Zavada is progressing. BTW, any rebuttals, questions from our side, will be open to 'alteration' advocates. My initial request to limit the posting in the primary thread was rejected by JohnS., "...it's not forum policy to..." I will post one rebuttal to Roland Zavada/Ray Fieldings' (editor regarding optical film printing issues-possibilities) initial post. I will then retire from the Ed Forum Z-film/DP film-photo debate. I mentioned same re: my Ed Forum DPlaza film/photo debate position in a email sent to Roland Zavada a few weeks ago. For those with continued interest regarding Zapruder film subject matter, I will also relate, where forum members can purchase the Univ. of Minn Zapruder Film Symposium DVD's ALL presenters: JFetzer, DMantik, JWhite, JCostella, DLifton and myself in *FULL*, or individual presentations. For the most, the book HOAX is a abbreviated version of what's included in the DVD set. David Healy

'William Kelly' wrote: [...] If anyone wants to sue me, or donate money to COPA's Legal Fund they can reach me at: Bill Kelly COPA PO Box 772 Washington D.C., 20044 Bkjfk3@yahoo.com ________ ROFLMFAO! gott'a love your style, Bill Kelly! DHealy

David, you've already said that you have not seen any proof of alteration, so you must be able to say what there was about all those alteration claims in TGZFH that didn't seem convincing to you. Len's question is a fair one and considering you have responded countless times in these alteration threads ... you should have no trouble addressing his questions. Is it your intention to only offer nonresponsive replies on this forum? Bill amongst all your talents let's add another, that of a mind reader -- rofl -- For the record; I deal with those that understand travelling mattes and compositing -- later on, we'll keep you busy for the next 3 years, never fear! Seeing you brought the subject up, just what does Len understand when it comes to optical film printing? Should I waste my time educating him? You buy into this forum too?

'Len Colby' wrote: [...] You didn't answer the question "What difference would access to the original make regarding the content alteration alleged in TGZFH?" [...] ______________ dgh01: guess your going to have to wait...

wake up Len -- I'm debating no one, nor is Roland Zavada! Disengenuous? Here it is again so you and the rest of the clan can understand it: a.)...emulsion characteristics...", no one on this side of the question (pro-alteration or undecided) has ever, or will EVER question the fact that Rollie is the go-to guy when it comes to 8mm film and its CHARACTERISTICS b.) no one on this side of the authenticity issue has ever questioned the 8mm Zarpruder film currently stored at NARA as KodachromeII or IIA AND displaying same CHARACTERISTICS -- One assumes that if Kodak's go-to guy visits NARA, to VIEW and EVALUATE EMULSION CHARACTERISTICS re the Z-film [with Toner] and the film was NOT KII film he would report same... KODAK double 8mm film specifications, characteristics and properties should NOT be confused with processed film content -- Who lied? Have you been away from the USofA for that long? English becoming a second language, Len? ???? So now according to Healy someone has only “scrutinized” a film if they have studied it’s density? See above he examined the film three times or do you believe Rollie lied? ????????????? Tossing out strawmen again David? You did NOT specify that you were referring to content. What difference would access to the original make regarding the content alteration alleged in TGZFH? And as I mentioned above Zavada’s findings went beyond determining that the film was KII. Did you really miss my point or were you being disingenuous? Len

'Evan Burton' wrote: I can't comment on the validity of Mr Costella's work because, as I have said many times, I don't have the necessary knowledge of the complex issues involved in the debate to make a meaningful contribution. At best, they'd be speculation by an uninformed observer. [...] thank you Evan duly noted. -- David Healy

'Alan Healy' wrote: [...] Also David, can you please start using the "wrap in a quote" function at the top of the reply window, please!!?! I am struggling to seperate your thoughts from those of others. dgh01: Alan, In my responses I'm in BOLD, most of the time. Also, for the record: Alan Healy and I have NEVER met, to the best of my knowledge we are not related)... David

where's BMiller's bio again?

'Len Colby' drones on: I was surprised to read the following declaration from Mr. Healy last Monday dgh01: surprised? Cobly struggles with: "To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!" Why would he make a statement that he knew to be false? dgh: False? Jump'in the gun pal? Or, has this bit of fame gone to your head? Surely you'll find a url we can go to and clear up film density findings, author of findings, yes! Didn't he expect to get called on it? Did he simply forget that Rollie Zavada had "scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original" on several occasions? dgh: Several? we know of ONE published Roland Zavada visit to NARA, if there are more please feel obliged -- to wit: "...emulsion characteristics...", no one on this side of the question (pro-alteration or undecided) has ever, EVER question the fact that Rollie is the go-to guy when it comes to 8mm film and its CHARACTERISTICS, no one on this side of the authenticity issue has ever questioned the 8mm Zarpruder film currently stored at NARA as KodachromeII or IIA and displaying same CHARACTERISTICS -- One assumes that if Kodak's go-to guy visits NARA, to VIEW and EVALUATE EMULSION CHARACTERISTICS re the Z-film [with Toner] and the film was NOT KII film he would report back same... WHAT the hell does that have to do with the films content?.... in sum: Rollie proved to my satisfaction, and many others, without question the film stored at NARA is of KII variety, the content, Z- film content matter is the question at the moment -- note: at NARA, how'd they view the intersprocket area of the Z-film , 8mm film through a loop, pictures of frames, 3x5-4x5 trannies of the camera original frames? always wondered about that... see: http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm [...] "In September 1997, Toner and Zavada visited Washington and, in addition to studying selected autopsy film and x-ray images at NARA, they also studied perceived anomalies in the inter-sprocket areas of the original Zapruder film, and the emulsion characteristics and edge print characteristics of what NARA presumed to be the camera-original Zapruder film and the two Secret Service first generation copies. (See the 3 illustrations on page 121 [omitted here].) Following this visit, Zavada began writing his extensive report on Zapruder film issues, which expanded in scope as his research into camera optics and printer characteristics continued. This report was scheduled for completion by Kodak no later than September 30, 1998; six copies were scheduled for deposit at NARA in the JFK Collection" A report scheduled for completion by KODAK... That's kind of hard to believe too because he knows Mr. Zavada and is in phone and e-mail contact with him and has referred to the "Zavada Report" on this forum and mentioned it three times in his chapter in Hoax (pgs. 113 – 144) dgh01: what's hard to believe? Rollie did his job, and a great job he did, least in my estimation -- He could of used a bit more cooperation from certain circles, well, a LOT more... [...]

No, David .... debate would call for you to have knowledge of the assassination. When you get pressed for information - you respond like this "I think I'm done with you, Bill-goodnight." Bill and knowledge of the assassination buys you what, Bill -- be very specific, what do all those .gif animations and the thousands, upon thousands of posts buy YOU?

Are we debating something here? Should I be nervous about something? rofl!

What an interesting turn of events. A few examples of Costella's mistakes show up on this forum and a request for a correction to the web page you list is made...and suddenly this new disclaimer appears I would bet the mistakes (which now becomes disinformation) will remain to fool the unsuspecting for as long as the page remains active. What a crock. Still it's kind of funny to see Fetzers own site hosting proven disinformation given his tirades on the subject of disinformation. Whats even more interesting is that another forum member, Evan Burton, is an employee of the Australian Federal Government and he seems pretty free to speak his mind about the US Space program, the Wellstone crash and 9/11. Perhaps Evan could comment on thios sudden stroke of nationalism on Costella's part. please continue -- you too Evan if you find it necessary to join in -- seems Lampoon needs a little support when he attacks ones motives for doing something unrelated to his (Lamson) wet dreams... Lampoon's pettiness is duly noted for all to see -- as for comments regarding nationalism... well, never mind, I have much respect for others freedom and their flag to degrade the term 'patriotism' with the likes of you know who... For the record, this tidbit found should only embolden you, I suspect it already has ---- thanks! You ever serve in the military Craig? have a nice life, guy -- ______________________________ 'Bill Miller' wrote ahhhh, this is the best the other side of the equation can come up with? LOL! I suggest, save it, for your comments regarding discussion soon at hand -- you'll have your hands full, believe me! David Healy Is the above the extent of your rebuttal, David? be MORE than enough for you -- still plugging away...

Well except for the stuff he says about not being able to sharpen a photo without a computer, which is just plain not true...but hey he's an expert in physics, math, computers and OPTICS...well maybe.... Lots of other stuff he's wrong about as well, but I guess it's his choice to STAND by his mistakes. ahhhh, this is the best the other side of the equation can come up with? LOL! I suggest, save it, for your comments regarding discussion soon at hand -- you'll have your hands full, believe me! David Healy

I probably will have very little to say about Zavada. In his report he admitted that HE DID NOT STUDY THE IMAGES of the Zfilm for authenticity...only the technical aspects of the film used. I have no doubts that the film was GENUINE KODACHROME, with all the relevant coding and technical specifications. It is the IMAGES that are in question...not the film stock. Zavada is not aware of the real issues. Jack Jack you missed the point of Zavada's finding's. In ADDITION to the above he determined 1) The Z film could not have been a copy but had to an "in camera" original for various technical reasons 2) the film showed no signs of compositing 3) the types of alterations alleged were not possible at the time. Len why not let the "dissertation-presentation" presenters come forth when they're ready, please. I wouldn't want lurkers to think anyone has the inside track as to what may, or may NOT be presented ... As some might presume, Mr. Colby may/will have a place in this, assisting the Roland Zavada dissertation (up to Roland Zavada, I've made my thought known - I do NOT object) with Ed forum protocol for dissertaion-presentation. I've made a request to John Simkin for assistance. Details are in the works at the moment, I'll make further comments regarding same when appropriate, I expect soon. As I said, we're speaking with John Simkin and The Ed Forum regarding the "how's". Dissertation-presentation parameters will be posted in a "**new***" unemcumbered, hopefully *moderated* thread. David Healy [whom is viewing Mr. Colby's posts these day's]

yes there is, Stephen -- Bill Miller and I have had our last exchange.

[...] If you wish to be taken seriously - you may not want to do the things that you just complained about others doing. Bill I think I'm done with you, Bill-goodnight

fundamental rules of grammar? -- That's it?.... oh-wee! STRIKE ONE --

A comment was made in this thread that I responded to ... I have no intention of starting new threads when replying to statements made within this thread. Bill fine, then you won't mind posting your bio to the forum, will you? Or is just me than can't view it?