David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Read the header, Bill!
Allan had a legitimate comment it was addressed -- If you've anything to add, concerning THAT topic, please do.
Thread jacking won't work here....
David
-
Craig,
You've done some some very nice photographic work. I enjoyed looking at both sites.
/sarcasm on
Well, since I'm not qualified to even have an opinion, I really can't say what I just said, can I?
Now, on the other hand, if I thought that 25+ years of photographic and imaging experience actually sufficed to allow me to have an opinion, I'd say something like, "You've done some very nice photographic work."
/sarcasm off
I'd like to say thanks but it seems I've no standing...
But thanks anyways.
Film compositing work? as opposed to Photoshop? Well, by all means, share....
-
'Len Colby' wrote:
Craig (with all due respect) and David this whole "whose dick is bigger that whose I'm a better photographer than you" stick got old a long time ago.
But Healy it's time for you to put up or shut up post some links to or examples of your work if you are going to claim expertise
Seeing you're in the email loop -- I'll respond! First, G R O W U P ! Second, Expertise in WHAT? Despite your "with all due respect" clap-trap.... What you fail to realize Len, I'm a Technical Director/Senior Editor for 40 years and Camerman/Line Producer for 30+ years -- so if you want to rate whose **** is bigger than whose, best find someone Lamson can handle -- As for compositing; more ways to skin a cat when compositing and Dean Fielding is well aware of that --- just NO money being a 'still' photog, Len! Those photogs' that do well, DON'T spend day in and day out posting to internet forums... I hire the guy's!
Let me makes this clear enough so you and Lampoon understand ...
My career work is not the subject, nor is Lampoons trailer photos -- you guy's need someones work to bash, head for the other internet boards.... your demands are recoginized and discarded as distraction and nuisance -- I'm not involved in a judgment contest....
As for your need to read/view something, you might get caught up on Zapruder film topics, optical film printing and a few SMPTE '63-'64periodicals -- if the need arises and Roland Zavada or Dean Fielding request my credit sheet it will be provided to THEM and THEM alone.
Try'in to get me all riled up, Len? Lurker's are smarter than that!
-
Having these gentlemen contribute their time and insight is quite an accomplishment. They owe us nothing and are quite gracious if it, in fact, happens. Thanks, David, for working on this.
trying Nick...
-
'Craig Lamson'
I see you are still playing those silly raindeer...er David games.
somebody buy this poor soul a drink.....
What a phoney you are Healy. You have posted no samples because you have no film composition samples...simple as that.
Lamson you've not posted one image to the web in 5 years that I know of -- who are you trying to bullxxxx? Read HOAX, get off your lazy ass
I on the other hand do have samples of composites I created on film, but of course you can't deal with someone who has actuallly made a film based composite.
let me make it real easy for you champ, post a frame from 5 of your 'alledged' composites we'll take a look see -- but of course you WON't! Why You can't stand the pain of professional/artistic criticism -- especially from those that you've made a career out of L A M P O O N I N G ---- you've no standing craigster, NONE! Get the protfolio tpogether maybe we can help you out
Hell you can't even do a decent job of digital compositing a single frame....what a phoney!
right here guy..... let's see your stuff, I've been asked why I bother with you? Simple, sooner or later this alledged photog has to deliver. What he'll deliver no one knows! Well, of course Tink knows- -- but he ain't telling
As for creativity...your company's not putting much on the plate there bud...unless you think licence plates, realtor brocures and cowbow vids are creative stuff.
hey dufus, you ever design a license plate -- my daughter-in-law has two, how many you have, again -- and that's my son's company chump, I'm choosey about consulting clients .... -- Shall I tell him to be aware of harrassing trailer photographers from the midwest with to much time on his hands....?
Talk about bruised egos! Yours must be a real mess.
get out the Brownie mother, Craig Lamson is comin for suppah!
As for the total resolution possible for the zapruder camera/film as shot by zapruder... I understand how it works..do you? AGAIN its your claim...give us the details there cowboy shooter in lp/mm and please specify the contrast range. How about FOR ONCE YOU ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN RUN YOUR MOUTH!
keep you girdle on -- gett'in aintsy back there in skeeter land?
Bow wow!
here kitty-kitty,
Oh, you got a website? Something you're kids are proud of? -- that's what I thought ROFLMAO
-
'Josiah Thompson' wrote:
[...]
Well David Healy, how about that? Moorman said she stepped into the street to take a photo and she actually did! Only the photo she took when she stepped into the street was not her famous photo. It was a photo taken almost forty seconds earlier of Officer McBride cruising by on his bike. And how do we know this is the case? Because the photo of McBride itself shows Moorman was standing in the street when she took it... looking UP at the 58 inch high top of his windscreen. All of this was worked out years ago by Bill Miller who went so far as to track down a motorcycle used in the motorcade and get measurements of the height of its windscreen. That is what real research is about. Getting the facts right... not popping off in a half-baked fashion.
dgh01: Well Josiah Thompson, how 'bout THAT! Where there's doubt.... what can I say? Let's just say, the waters are murky as ever....
hmm, measuring the height of a motorcycle windscreen, 40 years AFTER the fact?
Great research! Were the tires flat? I'll keep that 'real research' in mind, thanks!
[...]
-
'Allan Eaglesham' wrote:
[...]
DISCUSSION
36 entries found for discussion.
Main Entry: discussion
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: talk
Synonyms: altercation, analysis, argument, argumentation, bull session, bull yard, canvass, colloquy, confab, confabulation, conference, consideration, consultation, contention, controversy, conversation, debate, deliberation, dialogue, discourse, dispute, dissertation, examination, exchange, excursus, flap, gabfest, groupthink, huddle, interview, meet, meeting, powwow, quarrel, rap, rap session, review, scrutiny, symposium, ventilation, wrangling
---------------------
David:
Do you need to define the subtle difference(s) you see between "debate" and "discussion"? Above, "debate" is defined as "discussion," and "debate" is provided as a synonym for "discussion."
Allan
*******
Allan,
The definition [as stated above] re discussion is; talk, no one I know of is looking to win debate points...
-
JThompson wrote:
With all due respect, Professor Fetzer, do you really want to argue here in front of all these people that Mary Moorman took her famous photo from the street and not from the position she is shown to be in in the Zapruder film? Are you willing to argue this? Or are you just blow-harding around as usual? If you are serious in wanting to argue this point, all you have to do is give your reasons. Why do you think Mary Moorman was standing in the street and not on the grass when she took her famous photo?
How about; she said she stepped into the street and took a photo?
Then again it doesn't take a deep understanding of rocket science to conclude how the WCR deals with "eyewitness testimony"
If you are not serious about this, then spare us the irrelevant correspondence with David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. which proves exactly nothing.
*************************************
'Craig Lamson' blubbered
No trackable photo record...I like that one...coming from David, I've no samples, Healy.
Now why praytell would I post samples? There's absolutely no one on this board that's shown any understanding of film compositing -- that includes those that make pictures of trailers, buses, and boats.... dry goods... honest work, somewhat short in creative department though...
The Z film resolution canard was all your baby Healy...so hop to it and build the rest of your strawman.
I await your response, if you don't know resolution admit it! Its a very confusing issue - We're here to help Craigster....
Now go lay back down at the feet of your master like a good doggie.
Master? Doggies? Now don't tell me your into that kinda internet stuff.....
-
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
-
Healy ignorantly says:
"Your talking high resolution ASA25 8mm film here, not lousy VHS tape dupes of same"
Come on David what a rookie mistake. And somehow you want people to take you seriously? ROFLMAO!
The resolution of the film stock plays only a part in the overall resolution of an image recorded on film. Don't you know better David?
So why dont you give us the actual lp/mm of resolution the hand held Zapruder camera was able to record at full telephoto zoom. And please specify the contrast ratio used for your testing and why you chose that ratio.
if your a blood spatter expert, please step up, if NOT sit down, Thanks
You a blood splatter expert now too? Or just playing guard dog for aussieboy?
And since you made the silly statement about the "resolution" of kodachrome 25, its fair to ask you exactly what you know about the resolution of the entire imaging system Zapruder used....which appears to be nothing. Of course the entire exhange in your post was a simple strawman built to give yourself the air of authority...you should be ashamed.
Well whats the resolution of the Z-film, photog? Dazzle us with brilliance -- you need a formula?
I suspect when the need for a guard dog arises, the guard dog will present itself -- as for the moment, you or any other "photo expert" hereabouts, with no trackable photo record, don't make that necessary... as they say in Indy, buzz off Conroy.
-
Healy ignorantly says:
"Your talking high resolution ASA25 8mm film here, not lousy VHS tape dupes of same"
Come on David what a rookie mistake. And somehow you want people to take you seriously? ROFLMAO!
The resolution of the film stock plays only a part in the overall resolution of an image recorded on film. Don't you know better David?
So why dont you give us the actual lp/mm of resolution the hand held Zapruder camera was able to record at full telephoto zoom. And please specify the contrast ratio used for your testing and why you chose that ratio.
if your a blood spatter expert, please step up, if NOT sit down, Thanks
-
Len, it is funny that them guys have said the same thing that Groden told me ... David seems to ignore them all even though he has no expertise to do so. I remind veveryone once agin that Groden did examine the camera original and I posted his response concerning its authenticity which David also ignores.
Bill
Send my best to Colby above --
Now, what camera original film was it that Robert Groden handled?
Was that the same film David Lifton reviewed when LIFE [can't remeber whether it was it came from Chicago or New York office] shipped the film to Los Angeles, complete with LIFE rep, anyway? That one?
Will Robert Groden go on the record stating he handled the in-camera Zapruder original, we'd like to know the film header # he "handled"?
Hell, we haven't even got to film expertise yet? No need, YET!
-
'Sherry Gutierrez' wrote:
David Healy earlier wrote:
----------------
Appreciate your response, Sherry
If *your* crime scene photos (evidence) were called into question, for any reason - what's the result?
Anytime photographs are entered into evidence, regardless of the established chain of custody, there must still be verbal testimony to establish the photographs are representative of the crime scene. If the initial witness agrees the photos presented in court for evidence are representative of the scene THEN they are accepted as evidence. Normally, each subsequent witness that testifies about something in a photograph will be asked that very same question. Occasionally, courts use photographs taken by private individuals with no documented chain of custody and they are readily accepted into evidence by the court. The problem would occur if verbal testimony established the photographs were not representative of the scene.
So, if I understand you, you have NO experience with this kind of evidence - Limo washed and moved out of state -- which means NO blood spatter analysis in the limo. New territory for you, yes?
No, NOT new territory for me. Crime scenes are cleaned by perpetrators and cars moved to other locations everyday, and I have worked hundreds of cases where the scene was cleaned. But, I did not state I used blood in the limo in analysis; I simply stated the Hoax claim below to be false.
Hoax Claim: But what tells us that this “blood” is fake is the fact that it disappears into thin air! If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether. It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all.
Most people really don’t need photographs (although there are many) or witness statements (although there are many) to believe that if someone is shot in the head while in a car, there will be blood within the car. The webpage statement is contrary to testimony, available photographs and common sense thinking.
contrary to testimony -- hmm, I do believe thats why we have a advisarial legal system. As for common sense thinking, well murdering a guy, shooting him in the back, to die in his wifes arms, on a American City street who happens to be the "leader of the free world", does that defy common sense or do you know something we don't? --
and is that 'most people' as in jury panel members?
Have you in your analysis run a color [rgb] gamma test on the frames including and immediately after Z-313?
No, and what does that have to do with what we are addressing here? I stated the pattern in the Zapruder film was consistent with what I had professionally observed and that blood was documented as being in the vehicle and on other persons. I was specific about what page and statements I was addressing.
if you utilized the Z-film as evidence, and you were on the stand at this point I'd say; "I rest my case Your Honor"... You'll do much better WITHOUT the Zapruder Film!
Then again here's that old; "consistent with", so I ask consistent with WHAT?
My stance is that on the webpage in question there are erroneous statements presented as facts. Do you disagree with that?
that should be obvious -- nothing CSI sexy here -- where's the blood, where'd it go? Your talking high resolution ASA25 8mm film here, not lousy VHS tape dupes of same
David, do you personally believe there was no blood in the car from a victim with a gaping head wound?
Do you personally believe all the statements and or testimony of Bobby Hargis, Nellie Connally, Roy Kellerman, Samuel Kinney, William Joseph "B. J." Martin, Robert A. Frazier, James Chaney, William Greer, Governor Connally and others describing the blood either in the car or on their persons to be fabrication?
Of course not! I do wonder why the DPD motor officer 'closest' to JFK was not questioned by the WC though. Did he wear blood and brains?
If your answer is no to either question and I do expect an answer; may I ask how can you defend information presented as scientific fact when you know it is incorrect?
Sherry, you've proved nothing -- your status as a expert regarding what you think YOU see on film is challenged - big deal! I know film - you know blood spatter -- where'd the blood go in the Z-film? Does the film show blood dissapation correctly?
If your answer is yes, please provide a specific example of a why you believe the testimony concerning blood on a person or in the limo to be a lie.
frankly, concerning the Z-film, I can't see a drop of blood on the limo, in particular the trunk, I can only assume there'd be plenty IN the LIMO, I've seen pics that shows same --
So, have the alledged camera original Z-film undergo forensic testing, we'll go from there -- till then Sherry, its all eyewitness testimony and we know how Lone Nutter's and WC advocates treat eye witness testimony, don't we
[...]
-
'Bill Miller' wrote:
I have a tendency to listen to opinions from those with trackable experience, especially when it concerns format matter I understand and work with daily -- and quite frankly those belong to none other than Jack White and yes, Gary Mack! And I don't agree with either 100% of the time
According to you ... you have disagreed with Jack's claims of film and photo alteration 100% of the time for you have stated that you HAVE NOT seen proof of alteration.[/b]
dgh01: Bill: so even you can understand: post right here: [ ] where have I said Jack White is wrong 100% of the time? -- Who do you think your dealing with -- btw, where's YOUR forum bio it was not available a few minutes ago?
There's no damage control, Bill -- How can there be damage control? You can't prove a damn thing - Jack can't prove anything and neither can I we don't have access to originals -- when it comes to educated guesses regarding still photography, my money's on Jack -- The issue is photo credibility, its always been photo credibility. What the hell do you think Zavada did DP film testing for? Who cared about full claw issues between 1967-1990? and WHY care?
There two issues here ...
1) If you are sincere in your beliefs, then apply them to Jack's post as well.
2) Even if all the photos and films were fake - the misreading of them is what Jack is being accused of and has nothing to do with their validity.
dgh01: there's only one issue here Bill -- YOUR EGO and no tractable film photo/experience [just internet boards and I might say the same of quite a few others on this board]....
based on your above: "...Even if all the photos and films were fake..." How praytell, can you mis-read a "fake photo?"
Bill
-
for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing.
FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL!
David, where were your concerns about camera originals whan Jack made his claim? These guys are` addressing the images that Jack used. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. While it is apparent that you know little about the evidence ... I think that if all you plan on doing is being a refere, then at least call them the same for both sides.
[this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any!
But yet you didn't bitch to Jack when he makes his claims by way of using photos that have no credibility in your view. Moorman says he was in the grass - Hill says she was back in the grass before the first sounded ... so do you think you can do damage control for Jack by talking lineage? Furthermore - the problems are not over the credibility of the photos, but rather the flaws in Jack's allegations and reconstructions.
Bill
Bill you'll going to go a long way before you see or hear me say anything other than it's all "opinion" when it comes to the Z-film. Some have much more experience stating opinion and defining photo study performed. I have a tendency to listen to opinions from those with trackable experience, especially when it concerns format matter I understand and work with daily -- and quite frankly those belong to none other than Jack White and yes, Gary Mack! And I don't agree with either 100% of the time -- For the record, Mack has much more access to footage and probably knows more regarding lineage of any one piece of JFK related celluloid than anyone else in the country. Does that equate to knowledge of film or optical film printing techniques? Nope!
There's no damage control, Bill -- How can there be damage control? You can't prove a damn thing - Jack can't prove anything and neither can I we don't have access to originals -- when it comes to educated guesses regarding still photography, my money's on Jack -- The issue is photo credibility, its always been photo credibility. What the hell do you think Zavada did DP film testing for? Who cared about full claw issues between 1967-1990? and WHY care?
-
'Sherry Gutierrez' responded in bold:
Appreciate your response, Sherry
In ALL the cases posted below - the case photos became evidence, I assume. Which leads one to believe the photos had a clear chain of posession, yes? ?We don't have that with the Zapruder film, do we?
If *your* crime scene photos (evidence) were called into question, for any reason - what's the result?
and the answer to my question initial question is:
"No case I worked had a videotape of the actual murder as it was carried out; this is part of what makes the Kennedy assassination unique."
Unique? LOL! A understatement! So, if I understand you, you have NO experience with this kind of evidence - Limo washed and moved out of state -- which means NO blood spatter analysis in the limo. New territory for you, yes?
Lest we forget, film resolution (8mm to 70mm=thousands of lines of resolution) much higher than videotape (large format videotape pre HD, 512 lines of resolution - VHS videotape 210 lines of resolution), AND not knowing what said Z-film dub pedegree or lineage is presents another entire set of problems for "blood" analysis, correct? Have you in your analysis run a color [rgb] gamma test on the frames including and immediately after Z-313?
Would you be satisfied as a licensed investigator to evaluate a dub, of a dub, of a dub, of a dub, of a dub, of a dub (this is conservative number of "dubs when it comes to the Z-film").... and expect to render a "expert blood spatter analysis of a event that took place 40 feet in front of a 8mm camera lens? Request the camera original film, perform a 'supervised' blowup of frames from same, yes?
BTW, your track record looks excellent -- I'd like your thoughts on how the Zapruder film was portrayed in the movie JFK?
David Healy
-
Might John Simkin grant this debate bandwidth?
Yes.
Appreciate that, John... I will email Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding a invitation to participate when I have Fielding's email address in hand [later this weekend], will post to this thread same e-mail withOUT addressees specific email address - you'll be made aware of all concerned 'verifiable' email addresses--
As stated see below:
From : David Healy <aeffects@hotmail.com>
Sent : Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:02 PM
To : Xfielding@XXXXXXXX.edu, zavadaXX@XXXXXXXXX.net
CC : aeffects@XXXXXXXXX.com
Subject : A invitation for discussion re: The Zapruder Film
Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox
Gentlemen,
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: below URL
(http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/)
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.
We’d like to put to rest, the possibility of Zapruder film alteration. As Roland knows, from earlier discussions, I hold, more or less, a neutral position concerning alteration. I tasked myself with determining for Dr. Jim Fetzer’s HOAX, if, the equipment, know-how, technical expertise and the time was available circa. 1963-64 to alter said film. My continued interest in same is quite simple; over-the-top responses whenever the question arises in public and private from the non Zapruder alteration side of the question. Leads one to wonder, why such a rigorous defense?
In short, there’ll be NO debate, only discussion. If conclusions are drawn, they belong to the concluder. I am not searching for consensus only clarification. A 10 day to 2 week time limit will be placed on the discussion. Each of you may chose one person to act in your behalf during your part of the discussion…
John Simkin has graciously granted Education Forum space for the discussion.
It’s been brought to my attention Dean Fielding, you were queried by a current Education Forum member, Mr. Colby regarding the Zapruder film, I’d like confirmation of same, please. I’ve also been made aware Roland has met with Dean Fielding. The result of that meeting (I suspect the Zapruder Film was under discussion) would help the understanding of the Zapruder film alteration scenario. Also, if Gary Mack seeks involvement in said discussions I’d like that confirmed too. That being said, I feel confident we can generate better understanding regarding what happened in Dealey Plaza November 22nd 1963, regarding the in-camera original Zapruder film.
This email [in its entirety - headers included] will be posted to the Education Forum prior to Monday Feb 20th. Feel free to respond directly with John Simkin, me, or to the concerned Education Forum thread.
I’m sure both of you will be granted immediate ‘forum’ posting privileges… please put forth conditions you impose to insure participation. You’ll be dealing with me and two others of my choosing, whom may or may not be current optical film printing "experts".
David Healy
**************
add: John Simkin -- I suspect normal registration process will be in order for these folks, correct? I'll also notify the board of ANY communication.
DH
Dean Fielding notified me he has "no interest in this matter" hence will not participate. He confirmed what Mr. Colby has posted, "had alteration occured it would not have survived scrutiny".
I've yet to speak with anyone who was queried regarding possible alteration of the Z-film circa. 1963-64?
As to surviving scrutiny -- what scrutiny? the Warren Commission?
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!
So to Dean Fielding, I ask him to turn to ppg. 17, 3rd edition of The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography (which he authored) and ask the parameters of the following paragraph:
quote on:
Nearly always, in the course of professional film production. the need arises for certain kinds of scenes which are too costly, too difficult, too time-consuming, too dangerous, or simply impossible to achieve with conventional photographic techniques.
These scenes may call for relatively simple effects, as to when optical transitions such as fades, wipes and dissolves are used to link... Or, they [effects] may be much more demanding, as when a city must be seen destroyed in a earthquake, when a non-existent, multi-million dollar building must be shown as part of a live action scene..., when pictorally uninteresting shots must be artistically "embellished" through the addition of clouds, trees, architecural detail, or when fantastic event which contradict the physical laws of nature must be shown upon a screen in order to satisfy the demands of an imaginative script-writer.
quote off
and were talking, a possible altered film, utilizing a few simple mattes? I'm not surprised
Thanks anyway Dean Fielding appreciate your time.....
David Healy
-
having independently before (and posted so in another thread) found what Bill is showing here, I state that 'I confirm what Bill's gif shows is correct, placing photographer not as suggested by Jack et al.'.
Just for the record, John, I have also verified that Bill's gif is correct. I recall your posting on this subject as well.
I suspect that in no time, you and I will be branded "Lancer Disinformationalists" or "Bill Miller Flunkies" or be informed that we're "not qualified to have an opinion" or something of the like... No wonder the case hasn't been solved 42+ years later.
for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing.
FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL!
"Looks like the DP eyewitness accounts are under attack... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts -- one can tell who the 'preservers of Dealey Plaza History' cheerleaders are --Unfortunaltely for some, what they need to avoid, at ALL costs, is WCR testimony and the SBT...."
David, While I find some of what you said to be probably true ... it too, is little more than cheerleading in itself.
Now to address the person with actual evidence whose text was copied in your response ...
Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman a couple of years ago what she thought about the "Moorman was in the street" claim and Mary said (according to Mark) that "it is silly". Mary told Mark that she was standing right where the Zapruder film shows her to be. This person whose text I'm referring to must not have read all the claims made within Jack's claim for Jack also said that Jean Hill was in the street with Mary when the cycles passed by them. I would invite this person to look at the Muchmore film because it picks up within a second or so from when Altgens took his photograph. Altgens photograph shows Mary and Jean's shadows barely reaching over the curb and onto the street, which is exactly what the Zapruder film shows. None of the assasination films show Moorman and Hill moving into or out of the street as the cycles pass by and Altgens #6 gives one a side view of just how close those cycles handbars come to the curb as they rode down Elm Street.
I have pointed out many times that Moorman's camera is looking over the tops of the windshields of the cycle riders and that their known windshield hieght is 4" taller than Jack gives for Moorman's camera height. Jack doesn't say Moorman stood on a box while in the street, nor does he say that Hill laid on the ground so Mary could stand on Jean so she could get her camera higher than those cycles windshields, so how does Jack address this ... HE DOESN'T! How does Fetzer address this - HE DOESN'T! One day when I was in the plaza with Robert Groden and we were talking about how foolish this Moorman in the street claim was - we decided to shoot a Muchmore recreation shot to make a point about Mary and Jean's shoes being seen in Marie's film. You see, as Altgens #6 photograph shows, the hill slopes down to the curb and the curb drops another 8 to 9 inches. This means that for Hill and Moorman to be in the street and over that slope, plus the curb, their shoes could not possibly be seen from where Muchore stood. The recreation photos Robert and I shot with stand-ins proved this beyone any doubt. How did Jack address this - HE DIDN'T! How did Fetzer address this - HE DIDN'T.
Jack White also had claimed that Jean Hill had said that she had goitten into the street and he used those words in support of his conclusion. Jack is correct - Jean did say she had gotten into the street. What Jack didn't tell the readers of his claim was that Jean stepped into the street as JFK had rounded the corner and she yelled at him to look her and Mary's direction. Jean was asked point blank on Black-Op radio about her stepping into the street and Jean said that she had gotten back up out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD SOUNDED.
When Fetzer came on Lancer's forum in defense of his reputation, he was confronted with these type of errors involving the alteration claims in his book and Fetzer's reply was that he didn't consider himself responsible for the claims others made in his book. Moorman being said to have been in the street was in fact a claim that Fetzer had supported. Jack in turn posted recently, " I am distressed, however, when they hold a view that is unsound, and REFUSE to even consider the evidence to the contrary. What is to be gained by supporting the validity of the film?" Ironic that Jack says this dispite the evidence against him even told by the actual people who were there. Jack implies in his last sentence that he doesn't understand what's to be gained by supporting the validity of the Zapruder film, but I guess one could easily ask Jack what is to be gained by falsely claiming the Zapruder film is altered?
Below is an overlay showing Jack and Fetzer's Moorman recreation photo against that of Moorman's. A cursory glance can tell someone that their camera was too low and too far east to be at the right place to get Moorman's position. Had they of gotten Moorman's location correct, then there would be no shifting taking place between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window. Yet despite what White says about how distressed he gets when reserahcers hold a view that is unsound ... he has and will continue doing the same thing despite the evidence showing that he was in error. It is great to show that there was a conspiracy and it is not the fact that Jack makes mistakes that bothers many of us. Instead it is the idea that he is willing to ignore the facts even if it means discrediting the witnesses to push a cllaim mthat he wants people to believe.
Bill Miller
JFK assassination researcher/investigator
this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any!
Just, trust me.
Here David..sit...roll over..now play dead...
White was wrong on this silly Moorman in the street claim...get over it. Your team lost that round.
As for White having touched lots of images ... great. Iits really too bad he is so inept at dealing with issues photographic.
You retouch the Moorman? Now thats a laugh. Based on your published works in the regard...well quite frankly Dave you simply suck at it.
Bow wow!
roflmfao, ROFLMFAO --- I'm as good at photo retouching as you're a photog --- I hire both - who needs to do retouching, I view results -- what we're seeing here Lurkers is "bent EGO"
Oh please David don't flatter yourself, you've nothing to offer. Someones ego must be bent because you sure spend a LOT of time trying to defend an old man who has blown what some might call a reputation.
But you David...put something on the table and then perhaps we can talk...so far you are nothing but hot air.
Now go fetch...
hang in there champ -- just the facts, man, just the facts. Go fetch ... lost your doggie, eh?
-
Great stuff, Ed.
Nice to see you still out here....
David
-
having independently before (and posted so in another thread) found what Bill is showing here, I state that 'I confirm what Bill's gif shows is correct, placing photographer not as suggested by Jack et al.'.
Just for the record, John, I have also verified that Bill's gif is correct. I recall your posting on this subject as well.
I suspect that in no time, you and I will be branded "Lancer Disinformationalists" or "Bill Miller Flunkies" or be informed that we're "not qualified to have an opinion" or something of the like... No wonder the case hasn't been solved 42+ years later.
for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing.
FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL!
"Looks like the DP eyewitness accounts are under attack... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts -- one can tell who the 'preservers of Dealey Plaza History' cheerleaders are --Unfortunaltely for some, what they need to avoid, at ALL costs, is WCR testimony and the SBT...."
David, While I find some of what you said to be probably true ... it too, is little more than cheerleading in itself.
Now to address the person with actual evidence whose text was copied in your response ...
Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman a couple of years ago what she thought about the "Moorman was in the street" claim and Mary said (according to Mark) that "it is silly". Mary told Mark that she was standing right where the Zapruder film shows her to be. This person whose text I'm referring to must not have read all the claims made within Jack's claim for Jack also said that Jean Hill was in the street with Mary when the cycles passed by them. I would invite this person to look at the Muchmore film because it picks up within a second or so from when Altgens took his photograph. Altgens photograph shows Mary and Jean's shadows barely reaching over the curb and onto the street, which is exactly what the Zapruder film shows. None of the assasination films show Moorman and Hill moving into or out of the street as the cycles pass by and Altgens #6 gives one a side view of just how close those cycles handbars come to the curb as they rode down Elm Street.
I have pointed out many times that Moorman's camera is looking over the tops of the windshields of the cycle riders and that their known windshield hieght is 4" taller than Jack gives for Moorman's camera height. Jack doesn't say Moorman stood on a box while in the street, nor does he say that Hill laid on the ground so Mary could stand on Jean so she could get her camera higher than those cycles windshields, so how does Jack address this ... HE DOESN'T! How does Fetzer address this - HE DOESN'T! One day when I was in the plaza with Robert Groden and we were talking about how foolish this Moorman in the street claim was - we decided to shoot a Muchmore recreation shot to make a point about Mary and Jean's shoes being seen in Marie's film. You see, as Altgens #6 photograph shows, the hill slopes down to the curb and the curb drops another 8 to 9 inches. This means that for Hill and Moorman to be in the street and over that slope, plus the curb, their shoes could not possibly be seen from where Muchore stood. The recreation photos Robert and I shot with stand-ins proved this beyone any doubt. How did Jack address this - HE DIDN'T! How did Fetzer address this - HE DIDN'T.
Jack White also had claimed that Jean Hill had said that she had goitten into the street and he used those words in support of his conclusion. Jack is correct - Jean did say she had gotten into the street. What Jack didn't tell the readers of his claim was that Jean stepped into the street as JFK had rounded the corner and she yelled at him to look her and Mary's direction. Jean was asked point blank on Black-Op radio about her stepping into the street and Jean said that she had gotten back up out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD SOUNDED.
When Fetzer came on Lancer's forum in defense of his reputation, he was confronted with these type of errors involving the alteration claims in his book and Fetzer's reply was that he didn't consider himself responsible for the claims others made in his book. Moorman being said to have been in the street was in fact a claim that Fetzer had supported. Jack in turn posted recently, " I am distressed, however, when they hold a view that is unsound, and REFUSE to even consider the evidence to the contrary. What is to be gained by supporting the validity of the film?" Ironic that Jack says this dispite the evidence against him even told by the actual people who were there. Jack implies in his last sentence that he doesn't understand what's to be gained by supporting the validity of the Zapruder film, but I guess one could easily ask Jack what is to be gained by falsely claiming the Zapruder film is altered?
Below is an overlay showing Jack and Fetzer's Moorman recreation photo against that of Moorman's. A cursory glance can tell someone that their camera was too low and too far east to be at the right place to get Moorman's position. Had they of gotten Moorman's location correct, then there would be no shifting taking place between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window. Yet despite what White says about how distressed he gets when reserahcers hold a view that is unsound ... he has and will continue doing the same thing despite the evidence showing that he was in error. It is great to show that there was a conspiracy and it is not the fact that Jack makes mistakes that bothers many of us. Instead it is the idea that he is willing to ignore the facts even if it means discrediting the witnesses to push a cllaim mthat he wants people to believe.
Bill Miller
JFK assassination researcher/investigator
this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any!
Just, trust me.
Here David..sit...roll over..now play dead...
White was wrong on this silly Moorman in the street claim...get over it. Your team lost that round.
As for White having touched lots of images ... great. Iits really too bad he is so inept at dealing with issues photographic.
You retouch the Moorman? Now thats a laugh. Based on your published works in the regard...well quite frankly Dave you simply suck at it.
Bow wow!
roflmfao, ROFLMFAO --- I'm as good at photo retouching as you're a photog --- I hire both - who needs to do retouching, I view results -- what we're seeing here Lurkers is "bent EGO"
-
'Sherry Gutierrez'
Why I am qualified to respond:
I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida; including US Federal District Court. I formerly headed the Forensic Investigative Unit for St. Charles Parish of the Louisiana Sheriff's Department and prior to that was second in command at the Lafayette Parish Metro Forensic Unit which served eight parishes. Presently, I am retired yet still do limited consultation for attorneys and law enforcement officials. When I retired I allowed my professional memberships expire. However, I was a member of the International Association for Identification and acquired the Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst certification. I have served on IAIs subcommittee for bloodstain pattern evidence, and have presented at international and state conferences for that organization. I was a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction.
I am recognized as a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis course instructor by the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the International Association for Identification; and have taught that field of investigation to law enforcement agencies and at police academies for over 20 years. I have published 15 articles in peer reviewed journals, and given lectures at national and international levels. I published my findings concerning the Kennedy Assassination on the web originally in 1995 and have yet for one expert in my field to review my work and find my methods in error.
dgh01: Hello Sherry - surely you won't mind pointing to ANY case where your *expert* blood spatter analysis was requested and you rendered same, based on film of the murder and the crime scene in real time?
I'm curious to know the disposition of said case...
Thanks,
David Healy
[...]
-
having independently before (and posted so in another thread) found what Bill is showing here, I state that 'I confirm what Bill's gif shows is correct, placing photographer not as suggested by Jack et al.'.
Just for the record, John, I have also verified that Bill's gif is correct. I recall your posting on this subject as well.
I suspect that in no time, you and I will be branded "Lancer Disinformationalists" or "Bill Miller Flunkies" or be informed that we're "not qualified to have an opinion" or something of the like... No wonder the case hasn't been solved 42+ years later.
for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing.
FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL!
"Looks like the DP eyewitness accounts are under attack... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts -- one can tell who the 'preservers of Dealey Plaza History' cheerleaders are --Unfortunaltely for some, what they need to avoid, at ALL costs, is WCR testimony and the SBT...."
David, While I find some of what you said to be probably true ... it too, is little more than cheerleading in itself.
Now to address the person with actual evidence whose text was copied in your response ...
Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman a couple of years ago what she thought about the "Moorman was in the street" claim and Mary said (according to Mark) that "it is silly". Mary told Mark that she was standing right where the Zapruder film shows her to be. This person whose text I'm referring to must not have read all the claims made within Jack's claim for Jack also said that Jean Hill was in the street with Mary when the cycles passed by them. I would invite this person to look at the Muchmore film because it picks up within a second or so from when Altgens took his photograph. Altgens photograph shows Mary and Jean's shadows barely reaching over the curb and onto the street, which is exactly what the Zapruder film shows. None of the assasination films show Moorman and Hill moving into or out of the street as the cycles pass by and Altgens #6 gives one a side view of just how close those cycles handbars come to the curb as they rode down Elm Street.
I have pointed out many times that Moorman's camera is looking over the tops of the windshields of the cycle riders and that their known windshield hieght is 4" taller than Jack gives for Moorman's camera height. Jack doesn't say Moorman stood on a box while in the street, nor does he say that Hill laid on the ground so Mary could stand on Jean so she could get her camera higher than those cycles windshields, so how does Jack address this ... HE DOESN'T! How does Fetzer address this - HE DOESN'T! One day when I was in the plaza with Robert Groden and we were talking about how foolish this Moorman in the street claim was - we decided to shoot a Muchmore recreation shot to make a point about Mary and Jean's shoes being seen in Marie's film. You see, as Altgens #6 photograph shows, the hill slopes down to the curb and the curb drops another 8 to 9 inches. This means that for Hill and Moorman to be in the street and over that slope, plus the curb, their shoes could not possibly be seen from where Muchore stood. The recreation photos Robert and I shot with stand-ins proved this beyone any doubt. How did Jack address this - HE DIDN'T! How did Fetzer address this - HE DIDN'T.
Jack White also had claimed that Jean Hill had said that she had goitten into the street and he used those words in support of his conclusion. Jack is correct - Jean did say she had gotten into the street. What Jack didn't tell the readers of his claim was that Jean stepped into the street as JFK had rounded the corner and she yelled at him to look her and Mary's direction. Jean was asked point blank on Black-Op radio about her stepping into the street and Jean said that she had gotten back up out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD SOUNDED.
When Fetzer came on Lancer's forum in defense of his reputation, he was confronted with these type of errors involving the alteration claims in his book and Fetzer's reply was that he didn't consider himself responsible for the claims others made in his book. Moorman being said to have been in the street was in fact a claim that Fetzer had supported. Jack in turn posted recently, " I am distressed, however, when they hold a view that is unsound, and REFUSE to even consider the evidence to the contrary. What is to be gained by supporting the validity of the film?" Ironic that Jack says this dispite the evidence against him even told by the actual people who were there. Jack implies in his last sentence that he doesn't understand what's to be gained by supporting the validity of the Zapruder film, but I guess one could easily ask Jack what is to be gained by falsely claiming the Zapruder film is altered?
Below is an overlay showing Jack and Fetzer's Moorman recreation photo against that of Moorman's. A cursory glance can tell someone that their camera was too low and too far east to be at the right place to get Moorman's position. Had they of gotten Moorman's location correct, then there would be no shifting taking place between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window. Yet despite what White says about how distressed he gets when reserahcers hold a view that is unsound ... he has and will continue doing the same thing despite the evidence showing that he was in error. It is great to show that there was a conspiracy and it is not the fact that Jack makes mistakes that bothers many of us. Instead it is the idea that he is willing to ignore the facts even if it means discrediting the witnesses to push a cllaim mthat he wants people to believe.
Bill Miller
JFK assassination researcher/investigator
this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any!
Just, trust me.
-
Might John Simkin grant this debate bandwidth?
Yes.
Appreciate that, John... I will email Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding a invitation to participate when I have Fielding's email address in hand [later this weekend], will post to this thread same e-mail withOUT addressees specific email address - you'll be made aware of all concerned 'verifiable' email addresses--
As stated see below:
From : David Healy <aeffects@hotmail.com>
Sent : Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:02 PM
To : Xfielding@XXXXXXXX.edu, zavadaXX@XXXXXXXXX.net
CC : aeffects@XXXXXXXXX.com
Subject : A invitation for discussion re: The Zapruder Film
Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox
Gentlemen,
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: below URL
(http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/)
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.
We’d like to put to rest, the possibility of Zapruder film alteration. As Roland knows, from earlier discussions, I hold, more or less, a neutral position concerning alteration. I tasked myself with determining for Dr. Jim Fetzer’s HOAX, if, the equipment, know-how, technical expertise and the time was available circa. 1963-64 to alter said film. My continued interest in same is quite simple; over-the-top responses whenever the question arises in public and private from the non Zapruder alteration side of the question. Leads one to wonder, why such a rigorous defense?
In short, there’ll be NO debate, only discussion. If conclusions are drawn, they belong to the concluder. I am not searching for consensus only clarification. A 10 day to 2 week time limit will be placed on the discussion. Each of you may chose one person to act in your behalf during your part of the discussion…
John Simkin has graciously granted Education Forum space for the discussion.
It’s been brought to my attention Dean Fielding, you were queried by a current Education Forum member, Mr. Colby regarding the Zapruder film, I’d like confirmation of same, please. I’ve also been made aware Roland has met with Dean Fielding. The result of that meeting (I suspect the Zapruder Film was under discussion) would help the understanding of the Zapruder film alteration scenario. Also, if Gary Mack seeks involvement in said discussions I’d like that confirmed too. That being said, I feel confident we can generate better understanding regarding what happened in Dealey Plaza November 22nd 1963, regarding the in-camera original Zapruder film.
This email [in its entirety - headers included] will be posted to the Education Forum prior to Monday Feb 20th. Feel free to respond directly with John Simkin, me, or to the concerned Education Forum thread.
I’m sure both of you will be granted immediate ‘forum’ posting privileges… please put forth conditions you impose to insure participation. You’ll be dealing with me and two others of my choosing, whom may or may not be current optical film printing "experts".
David Healy
**************
add: John Simkin -- I suspect normal registration process will be in order for these folks, correct? I'll also notify the board of ANY communication.
DH
-
Boy John you need to re-read your history of the democrats and republicans in America during the 60's in regard to civil rights....try the civil rights act for starters...
http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_h...ights64text.htm
What is your point? I did not mention Democrats and Republicans. I was instead talking about conservatives and liberals.
So are you suggesting that the southern Democrats who were opposed to the civil rights act were the conservatives and the northern republicans were the liberals?
You made a very silly statement. "However, it is accurate to say that in a historical sense, all racists are conservatives. " Whats even more troubling is that this statement is coming from an educator.
oh brother -- buy this guy a Brownie... a history buff he ain't ... roflmfao!
NEW --- Zavada-Fielding Z-film discussion
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David G. Healy
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?