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' 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...
-
I would like to understand the process used by Jack White. Jack - Badgeman was the result of performing some photographic enlargement techniques upon the Moorman photo - is that correct? Who has the Moorman photo now - and why is no one interested in performing the same process for the fenceline by the tree? Robin Unger and I worked from the same source material - although Robin's enhancements were far superior to what I was able to come up with [attached]. In multiple scans of printed material, I was able to confirm what Robin had demonstrated, using a variety of sources - but again - not of the quality Robin achieved.
I see, a man wearing a Police Hat, with a rifle, a man on a radio, and another man with a camera wearing a hat.
Why isn't anyone interested in pursuing the same technique used by Jack to confirm Badgeman, and examine the grassy knoll shooter by the tree? Who holds the 'original' Moorman photo today? Isn't anyone interested in using the same technique Jack used on the rest of the photo?
This is baffling to me.
- lee
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!
-
I would like to understand the process used by Jack White. Jack - Badgeman was the result of performing some photographic enlargement techniques upon the Moorman photo - is that correct? Who has the Moorman photo now - and why is no one interested in performing the same process for the fenceline by the tree? Robin Unger and I worked from the same source material - although Robin's enhancements were far superior to what I was able to come up with [attached]. In multiple scans of printed material, I was able to confirm what Robin had demonstrated, using a variety of sources - but again - not of the quality Robin achieved.
I see, a man wearing a Police Hat, with a rifle, a man on a radio, and another man with a camera wearing a hat.
Why isn't anyone interested in pursuing the same technique used by Jack to confirm Badgeman, and examine the grassy knoll shooter by the tree? Who holds the 'original' Moorman photo today? Isn't anyone interested in using the same technique Jack used on the rest of the photo?
This is baffling to me.
- lee
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!
-
I would like to follow in Bill's footsteps, with a few things I have learned in my 47 years.
As a lifelong resident of Dallas, Texas I believe, along with the fact that I have always had an intense interest in history, as well as being an avid reader, (my library has over 500 books, only 75 are on the JFK Assassination) those factors give me an advantage to being committed to resolve the last remains of the hidden history of the JFK assassination, as I call it.
Historian's generally agree that history goes in cycles, one of the most constant cycles in American history is assassinations, whereas European culture having almost a 1000 more years of 'history' to experience the gamut of political reality, tends to take a more 'real world' view of events than in the comparitively younger United States. Thus, when America in the 1960's went through the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK Jr., and RFK' they had a perspective free of the shackles of media control, saw the events in the context of politics, money and power and in many individuals minds when combined with the unbelievably poor attempt of government and officialdom to properly investigate, drew the realist view, if it walks, talk's, think's, act's and behaves like a duck, there IS more than a chance 'it is a duck.'
But, to the point at hand. Thoroughout my life I can literally say that when I speak to individuals in Big D (Dallas) regarding the JFK assassination it is unanimously agreed to be a conspiracy, but as they say, that and $ 2.71 will get you a coffee at Starbuck's.
The esential point: In 1941 it has been proven that FDR through the auspices of ONI, British intelligence and the codebreakers, knew that the Japanese Combined Fleet was on it's way to attack Pearl Harbor, nothing was done to alert Admiral's Kimmel and General Short at Pearl, they were humiliated in a much publicized hearing and American's were informed via the print media, that their neglect was the cause of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Compounding the validity of the assertions of historians that Roosevelt had foreknowledge is the fact thaat his military advisors were telling him that the US Oil embargo on Japan, in retaliation for the invasion of French Indochina, would be considered by the military junta of Hidieki Tojo as a provocation, a causus belli, if you will for war.
Why is Roosevelt not considered a 'bad President', morally as well as in terms of leadership? (He ostensibly led America into a war that quote 'wasn't what America wanted at the time,' as society in the 1940's still had memories of the sinking of the Lusitania (that also was rightly, controversial and was more responsive to the ideals of the Founding Father's injunction of staying free of 'foreign entanglements,' 'an idea obsolescent?' and thus, was to a great degree isolationist in it's outlook.)
The Answer? Firstly his foreknowledge was not a known fact until for the most part, decades later, a generation of people die (the one's who would have been the most scandalized) Secondly, historians consider the 'situation/scenario;'
Roosevelt displayed courage and resiliency, saved Western culture from a world controlled by the Axis Power's of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Two very generalized answers, albeit but they are very relevant to the concepts being argued in this thread.
So? Who is right, who is wrong. The answer in my estimation is that a de facto 'consensus' is somewhat problematic, and largely irrelevant, it is now history, for better or worse.
Does this mean I am condoning President Roosevelt's actions, No.
Does it prove or disprove that there was a 'conspiracy to draw America into War?'
The answer to that question lies within the reader of this post to answer the question, apply the same dynamics to the assassination of JFK, and you may have a 'clearer picture' of why 43 years after 1963, there will not be any cooperation from the government to answer, the question we all want to know the answer to.
If there is one aspect of the saga of the JFK Assassination that thoroughly displays the fact that 'the winners write history,' it is that without exception every lecherous individual associated with the assassination cover-up went on to infinitely better things, the concept that someone like (Mister Single Bullet Theory) Sen. Arlen Specter has lived to tell his Senate compatriots that it is 'not necessary' to swear in Atty. General Gonzalez was a little more more than ironic to me.
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?...It is desperately important that a dialogue is created between liberals and conservatives. In reality we are not too far apart. The real problem is with the far-right who control the mass-media and have created such an irrational dominant ideology. The internet is gradually changing the balance of power and eventually we will be able to join forces to create a better, more sustainable, society.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!
-
"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."
Does this mean that you will retire on your past position that you have never sen any evidence of alteration?
Bill
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
I've accepted Roland Zavada's offer.I've been in touch with Roland Zavada, over the next few day's we'll set a few parameters -- which may or may not include questions from forum members. There will be NO debate, discussion only.
David Healy
______________________________________
From : Rollie Zavada <zavadaXX@XXXXXXXXX.XXXXXXX>
Sent : Monday, February 20, 2006 6:34 PM
Subject : A invitation for discussion re: The Zapruder Film
Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox
David,
You wrote:
“I’d like to take this moment to ask for your participation in a discussion
surrounding the films of Dealey Plaza, November 1963. In particular, the
technical aspects of the Abraham Zapruder’s in camera-original film and the
original 3 optical film prints. The discussion will take place on John
Simkin’s Forum:
Primary topic under consideration is: Did/was the technical knowledge,
know-how, expertise, talent, optical film printing equipment available in
1963-64 for possible alteration. The discussion may branch to other Dealey
Plaza film scenarios.
In short, there'll be NO debate, only discussion.”
Although your invitation sounds intriguing, I do not want to be a part of a “forum” and Professor Fielding holds the same view. Even though you propose a time limit with no debate, discussion questions are a form of debate and they can be endless and exhausting. It is best if we confine ourselves to the facts as we know them.
I spoke with Professor Ray Fielding today and we can provide input to your question about the “capability of alteration” described in your paragraph two, above, as follows:
I will readdress the question of the improbability of alteration of the Zapruder camera original and the three Jamieson same-day copies – based on film technology, equipment, laboratory requirements and logistics. Professor Fielding has agreed to review and edit my comments so that prior to submission to your forum, you will have the views of a film expert endorsed by a special effects expert.
This will still require significant writing on my part which will take some time. Also I have no intent to “branch” to other Dealey Plaza film scenarios.
Please advise if this offer is acceptable.
Rollie Zavada
-
'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
-
'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...
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?
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! [...]???? So now according to Healy someone has only “scrutinized” a film if they have studied it’s density?
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 –
See above he examined the film three times or do you believe Rollie lied?
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...????????????? Tossing out strawmen again David?
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 –
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.
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...
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
-
I was refering specificly to compliance with rule #1 as spelled out on this thread. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=5976&st=0 I don't presume to speak for others but Tim Carrol and Bill Miller also voiced support for Healy's compliance. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=51745
Since he was so insistant that others obey the rules shouldn't he be held to the same standard?
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...
[...]
-
Are we debating something here? Should I be nervous about something? rofl!
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?
-
"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 --
be MORE than enough for you -- still plugging away...
"Two replies and no specifics ... now is this the extent of your rebuttal, David?
Bill
Are we debating something here? Should I be nervous about something? rofl!
-
John Costella says he is now an employee of the federal government of Australia. I was wondering if he or any of his friends would be willing to elaborate.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html
Len
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...
-
Costella is an expert in physics, math, computers, and optics. Did
it occur to you that they hired him for his expertise in these subjects?
You may have noted in his disclaimer that he STANDS BY all of his
previous work, but his new job makes it inappropriate that he comment
any further on any of it. However, even without further comments,
you can take his work to the bank and cash it! It is genuine.
Jack
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
-
Is there any chance that we could just drop all this and hear what Fielding and Zavada have to say, and what David and Jack and others have to say?
I know this personal stuff goes back a long way, and I think all the combatants are guilty of bad judgment at various times. Who was the first to be bad? Who cares? Who will be the first to do the right thing and back off?
The meat of the debate is interesting, and there are some good minds on each side. But this "I know better than you" stuff is schoolboy posturing.
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]
-
Is there any chance that we could just drop all this and hear what Fielding and Zavada have to say, and what David and Jack and others have to say?
I know this personal stuff goes back a long way, and I think all the combatants are guilty of bad judgment at various times. Who was the first to be bad? Who cares? Who will be the first to do the right thing and back off?
The meat of the debate is interesting, and there are some good minds on each side. But this "I know better than you" stuff is schoolboy posturing.
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
-
Mark S wrote:
But yes I do have the temerity to challenge it's assertions.
Well, Mark, I know you rush in where angels fear to tread, but if you are going to try to play expert, why don't you at least learn the fundamental rules of grammar? I thought you stated you had graduated from high school at least.
fundamental rules of grammar? -- That's it?.... oh-wee!
STRIKE ONE --
-
simple, No case in point, Bill -- just start your own thread..... on disagreement.
There's NO room for disagreement regarding a proposed discussion. Unless of course you disagree that two or three known experts in their field may present thoughts, ideas and evidence review regarding a certain crime committed in Dallas Texas?
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?
The trouble with Badge Man
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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