David G. Healy

'Craig Lamson' wrote and supports:

'Len Colby' - Lied (course if he posts a cite to the effect; * none of them are "photo experts" * I'll retract.... LOL

The problem with TGZFH is that most of the supposed experts do not know what they are talking about. Even Healy admitted thay none of them are "photo experts"

dgh01: apparently this dude feels the need to lie on occasion...

Most of what Sherry said seemed like common sense to me but since I don't have any expertise I didn't say any thing.

dghj01: what you "didn't say" is apparently what you DID say - GOD what children!

Once again when experts voice there opions the contradict the fantasies of Fetzer's "hand wavers"

Two down....

Two down, what? Come on Craig, no one knows if you've ever taken a picture in your life -- sit down, watch and learn. Of course you can prove expertise at any time.... supporting a xxxx isn't what I expect from of you, you should be ashamed of yourself

I love it when one member of Tink's little gang (Lamson) compliments another (Cobly). Something I don't understand about Sherry's discussion is that, during a Lancer Conference which I co-chaired, she explained how her work supported the position that the shots had come from the front, not the back. Perhaps she has changed her position or could otherwise elaborate upon it, because I am left in a state of uncertaintly as to where she stands. Perhaps John will have a chance to respond directly to Sherry's line of argument. The book itself, of course, presents more than a dozen proofs of alteration, including Homer McMahon's report of having observed six to eight impacts from at least three directions, Secret Service reports of agents having been nauseated by the brains and blood debris across the trunk, and witness reports of having watched a more complete version of the film that includes an abrupt limo stop, which was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out. I understand why there is a desperate search for at least some sliver of error in the research that leads to the conclusion that the film has been recreated, an undertaking that involved reshooting most of the frames (lest the sprocket hole images give the game away), because--in spite of the gang's best efforts--the evidence has proven to be remarkably robust. (Anyone who wants to learn more should go to http://www.assassinationscience.com and review John Costella's introduction to Zapruder film alteration, which is under discussion here, but also the "Zapruder Film Hoax Debate", where the gang does its best to refute our work, which we--principally John--patiently rebut, one by one.) I never tire of observing how many critics never bother to read the book and therefore never cite the specifics of the arguments presented there. But of course John's video is "fair game", so I am certainly not objecting to its discussion here, even if, as I have observed here on more than one occasion, it might be instructive for members of this forum to actually study the arguments presented there. One of the more amusing of recently attempts to "disprove" alteration comes from Tink himself and reflects his gross misunderstanding of his own favorite issue:

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:15:27 -0800

From: David Mantik

Reply-To: David Mantik

Subject: RE: You're not going to believe what I have to tell you . . .

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Jim,

Of course, your description of our experiment and of the significance of

our numbers is completely correct. To go further, I would have to dig

through my old files for the data. They are now in storage.

As I recall, however, my last detailed study of this issue (some years ago),

including margin of error analysis (partly based on simple experiments I did),

was still consistent with Mary in the street. This data and analysis was shared

with Tink.

To the best of my memory, we discussed this briefly, but I don't recall any

significant quantitative refutation from him re. this particular

data set. If he has something new, I have not seen it.

David Mantik

-----Original Message-----

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]

Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:25 PM

To: David Mantik

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: You're not going to believe what I have to tell you . . .

David,

This silly man (aka TT) has popped up on jfk-research@yahoogroups.com,

which is moderated by one Barbara Junk (who implies that you and she

are great friends, having stayed at your home or you at hers at some

point in the distant past). I was drawn onto the site by an abusive

remark from Shackelford in response to the suggestion by a reasonable

fellow, Greywolf, who suggested that, relative to ULTIMATE SACRIFICE,

it might be worth the members' time to listen to a critique that I'd

given on black op radio. So Martin said something like "Fetzer on a

book is like Bozo the Clown on foreign affairs"! (As Len Osanic, who

hosts blackopradio.com, said to me, "Jim denies he has ever worn those

big shoes!") Anyway, Junk piled on, saying something like, "She had

met me and I suckled paranoia!", which I thought was a bit much for

the moderator of a forum, who is supposed to be neutral and impartial.

Anyway, she said that Greywolf could not post on my behalf and if I

wanted to reply, then I had to join the forum. So I did. And what

you or I or anyone who knew anything at all would predict, who pops

up but the man himself! Incredible as it may seem, he resurrected

the Moorman all over again in relation to the question of Zapruder

film alteration. I explained that it was complex, convoluted, and

not easy to understand, but he insisted that it is actually a very

simple situation. So far as I can tell, he does not even understand

the difference between verification and falsification, and seems to

believe that, if this specific line of attack on the authenticity of

the film is unsuccessful, then the film has been proven to be authen-

tic! Unbelievable that this guy actually has Ph.D. in philosophy

from Yale, but that's the story. He has been recycying every argu-

ent he ever made, most recently claiming that your notes about our

measurements prove that we committed major blunders in our research!

He had suggested that we had made the mistake of measuring heights

relative to the grass, which is soft and mushy and therefore not a

suitable base of reference. I explained that we used the mid-point

of the curb (between the street and the grass), which for some odd

reason he did not understand until I drew a diagram, explaining it

would be "monumental stupidity" to have used the grass (meaning of

course as the basis for our experiment, since we needed a reference

point that was solid and relatively immobile, which the mid-point

on the curb supplied). So I thought I had settled this (again),

but today, in a mood of triumph, he posted copies of notes that

you had lent him, which included the following kinds of notation:

.......on grass (distance......elevation of

............from curb).................LOS

...............3 ft.........................3'3"

...............2 ft.........................3'5"

...............1 ft.........................3'8"

.............1 1/2 ft...................3'6 3/4"

..........(not measured but interpolated)

What you are not going to believe is that he thinks this shows

we were measuring on the grass and therefore vindicates his

claim that we committed a blunder! Can you believe how stupid

that is? I mean, this is supposed to be his strongest attack

upon our work, and he doesn't even understand the difference

between (a) having a firm base on the curb as the foundation

for establishing the line of sight and ( using that line of

sign to determine its elevation above the grass if the photo

had been taken somewhere on the grass rather than somewhere

in the street! Of course, we would not have completed our

work if we hand done (a) but not (! He appears to have

forgotten that we are looking for evidence as to where Mary

must have been, when Mary was 5"2" tall (actually, 5'1 1/2"

in her bare feet). So if she was holding her camera up to

her eye level, or about 4" below the top of her head, the

line of sight should have been about 4" below 5'2", which

is 62", leaving the LOS at about 58", far too high to be

on the grass at any point, given your measurements on the

grass! Tink seems to have completely lost his marbles on

this one. I think there are signs of mental deterioration.

Unless Mary was a midger, she cannot have been on the LOS

we determined anywhere on the grass but has to have been

in the street. I have suggested that the members of this

forum actually read Jack's chapter, "Was Mary Standing in

the Street?", in HOAX, but so far as I can see, no one has

done that. They seem to think that Tink can lead them to

the promised land, but he has gone bonkers and thinks the

line of argument I have sketched here PROVES THAT WE WERE

WRONG! It's an interesting tag-team performance around

here, moreover, where Martin pipes off whenever he feels

like it and other shady characters are lurking just off

stage. Junk interevenes every now and them to support

Tink by implying that his questions and arguments are so

clear and obvious, whilel my explanations are convoluted

and complex! Really fascinating! Well, I just wanted to

let you know what's happening and ask you to write back

confirming everything I am saying here about your numbers

in relation to their significance within the context of

our experiment. I have the feeling that, when the men

in white coats finally come to take him away to a home

for the mentally bewildered, he will still be muttering

under his breath, "Moorman! Fetzer! Goddamn him!" but

no one will understand him and no one will even care.

Jim

P.S. Don't rush back with a reply. In the meanwhile,

Tink will be boasting about how he ran me off the

forum with a devastating argument! (Just for an

example of how bizarre this gets, one morning I

awakened to discover that, since my last post,

Martin had put up exactly thirty-two (32) replies!

----- Forwarded message from josiah@direcway.com -----

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:27:25 -0000

From: gumshoe882000 <josiah@direcway.com>

Reply-To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [jfk-research] PHOTOS POSTED UNDER "FILES" SECTION

To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

The "Photos" section has been useless to me. Instead, I went to

the "Files" section. I set up a folder under "Moorman Photo" and

then added the following photos:

(1) Mantik's Notes.

(2) Moorman Segment.

(3) Perfect line-up with location in Z-film (53.75")

(4) Red lines and without.

(5) Zapruder frame 303 showing Moorman and Hill.

I'm sorry I couldn't figure this out earlier, everyone. But there

you are, Len. Mantik's notes in living color and all the rest!

I ask you, Len. How the heck is Fetzer going to get out of this one?

Josiah Thompson

-- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, "Leonard" <lenbrasil@y...> wrote:

>

> Tink - I'd like to see those (Mantik's)notes although I'm not sure

> Fetzer does! I'd also like to see you LOS photo. I remember you

> attaching something to a previous post but attachments don't go

> through on Yahoo groups. The best thing to do would be to upload the

> images to this group's `Photos' section .

>

> Jim - You think your publisher would pop for a professional surveyor

> to verify the LOS? Even if they don't you might want to consider

> paying out of your own pocket. If you are so sure of the result it

> would worth it to humiliate your nemesis. Of course if his findings

> agree with Tink's you might not want to show your face in public for a

> while. Not afraid of the results I hope!

>

> If anybody from the 6th Floor or Conspiracy Museums is reading this

> maybe you might want to pay the surveyor.

>

The problem with TGZFH is that most of the supposed experts do not know what they are talking about. Even Healy admitted thay none of them are "photo experts"

Most of what Sherry said seemed like common sense to me but since I don't have any expertise I didn't say any thing.

Once again when experts voice there opions the contradict the fantasies of Fetzer's "hand wavers"

Two down....

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....

"I seriously doubt you or anyone else on this board could tell the difference between a camera original Kodachrome or KodacolorII, or dupes of either. Us guy's have never hidden, where's your guy's - that's the real question

The silence is deafening!"

I assume that this includes you in the list of people who "could not" tell the difference in the camera original and a duplicate film. However, Groden says it can be done, he claims he has done it, and he listed reasons that none of you guys had ever posted about because you never thought of it.

bill

so I understand you correctly: Groden can tell the difference between the unmarked Zapruder camera original and a 1st generation optical film print from same? If that's the case a presumption must be, he's witnessed or viewed #0183 -- I'd like to know where, when and under what viewing condition that occured -- looks like he's a candidate for the other side, yes?

"I seriously doubt you or anyone else on this board could tell the difference between a camera original Kodachrome or KodacolorII, or dupes of either. Us guy's have never hidden, where's your guy's - that's the real question

The silence is deafening!"

I assume that this includes you in the list of people who "could not" tell the difference in the camera original and a duplicate film. However, Groden says it can be done, he claims he has done it, and he listed reasons that none of you guys had ever posted about because you never thought of it.

bill

so I understand you correctly: Groden can tell the difference between a unmarked Zapruder camera original and a 1st generation optical film print from same? If that's the case a presumption must be, he's witnessed or viewed #0183 -- I'd like to know where, when and under what viewing condition that occured -- looks like he's a candidate for the other side, yes?

"I seriously doubt you or anyone else on this board could tell the difference between a camera original Kodachrome or KodacolorII, or dupes of either. Us guy's have never hidden, where's your guy's - that's the real question

The silence is deafening!"

I assume that this includes you in the list of people who "could not" tell the difference in the camera original and a duplicate film. However, Groden says it can be done, he claims he has done it, and he listed reasons that none of you guys had ever posted about because you never thought of it.

bill

no.#1 assume nothing -- so I understand you correctly: Groden can tell the difference between a unmarked Zapruder camera original and a 1st generation optical film print from same? If that's the case the presumption must be, he's witnessed or viewed #0183 -- I'd like to know where, when and under what viewing condition that occured, if in fact it did -- looks like he's a candidate for the other side, yes?

All

I've got some free time after this weekend ... Its been brought to my attention -- Mr. Colby has received a message from Raymond Fielding, author of 'The Technique Special Effects Cinematography.' I personally request to view the header and text of said email message, I'm sure forwarding same to a email address of my choice shouldn't prove difficult for Mr. Colby to perform. If the note from Fielding proves authentic, I'll personally invite Mr. Raymond Fielding AND Mr. Roland Zavada to appear on this forum and DEBATE the Zapruder Film and 1963-64 film compositing issues and techniques, I will post [in this thread, this weekend] the email request to both of them, complete with headers and any response from them via email or phone....

I'm sure between them they'll come up with 100 reasons to support the non-alteration position.

To show the breadth of my indulgence, I'll even utilize Mr. Colby and one other as my debate team partners (after I take Colby off the *tard pit* ignore list of course) the proviso: IF the Fielding email proves authentic... if true Fielding/Zavada can chose 1 forum member to do their legwork and post to the debate. The debate will last no longer than what 10days-2 weeks -- How's that sound?

Time to put up or shut up guy's!

Might break the attendence record for this board...

Might John Simkin grant this debate bandwidth?

David Healy

John Simkin won't need to add more bandwidth if he goes back and removes all the post you had made where you did nothing but cheerlead without offering one single shred of data to the discussion.

I would also like to say that if Fielding and Zavada come up with those 100 reasons in support of non-alteration as you stated ... I'd like to make it 101 for them by adding your posted response to this forum where you had stated that you have never seen any evidence of alteration yourself.

Bill

that's kind of pithy, isnt it? And of course, I stated that -- allows those few to create possible "film compositing" scenarios, not only makes good science - makes sense, too. So I wouldn't sweat it, too much!

Watch them make mince meat of 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--

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

Sure you need film experts for that was obvious when you were talking possible Zfilm alteraion by way of an optical printer, while not knowing the obvious signs that would be present in the transfering of Kodachrome II film. That's the problem with you guys - you only get one aspect of the equation addressed and leave out the rest.

Well hell, Bill tell ya what I'll do -- get Roland and Raymond here, we'll see who needs "experts" -- I seriously doubt you or anyone else on this board could tell the difference between a camera original Kodachrome or KodacolorII, or dupes of either. Us guy's have never hidden, where's your guy's - that's the real question

The silence is deafening!

[...]

bump -- wouldn't want the competition to forget about this.....

tom wrote:

That being, the US Military forced EVERYONE to shoot right-handed with the M1- Garand.

The reason for this is quite simple!

The ejection pattern for the shell casing of the M1-Garand, if fired left-handed, would send the hot/expended casing, directly towards the right eye.

There are numerous instances of eye injury, and I have one of those "Howell" cousins here, who was actually medically discharged and draws/drew a small disability check due to the injury to his right eye from having shot the M1-Garand from the left-handed position.

Therefore, in the US Military, you were forced to shoot the Garand right-handed, irrelevant as to whether you were or were not right handed.

[...]

There are evidently exceptions to every rule -- Having joined the ARMY -- 18 June, 1962 at Fort Ord, Co. A, 10th Battle Group, 3rd Training Bdge. Our group had the distinction of being the last basic training company to utilize the M-1 Garand as 'the' assigned Basic Training weapon. After our company completed basic trainning the M-1's were to have their bolts welded shut, the rifles (we were told) we're to be dumped in the Pacific Ocean...those familiar with Fort Ord know the Pacific was less than 2 miles away

In my BT squad, 3 of us were left handed, NONE of us were forced or coerced to change to right-handed shooting positions. We all shot EXPERT! I scored highest in the entire training battalion. Went to AIT qualified EXPERT with both M-14 and the .45. In Vietnam the .30 cal (air cooled), .50 cal and the 2.5 rocket laucher ALL fired [exception the .30cal air/.50cal) utilizing left the hand position... threw handgranades left handed, too...

FWIW

No hits by ejected casings?

We had the Garand in the Guard, and that I recall, the shoot right-handed held for all.

Perhaps Hemming may recall anything relative to the USMC position on this??

Tom,

sure did, damn hot casings -- had the thing go full auto on me, too -- night fire range...

David

'Bill Miller'

many, Many more alternatives than 2, so how long has the tree been there?

The trees have been there long enough for me to take their picture 40 years later and have their main trunks and branches still match. Are you going to try and make a case for them being replaced by trees that looked like those back in 1963?

dgh01: were these case suits filed by you, or were you a expert witness? Expert witness in what field?

I can see why you only post off-topic remarks because you can't seem to follow a bloody elephant through a freshly fallen snow. I believe I made it clear that I did the investigational work on the first case. Both cases involved medical experts, reconstruction investigation experts, and legal experts testifying.

oh.... don't be so sure of that, pretty tough to miss a elephant sitting in the middle of a room.

well, I think thats great -- to bad the attorney's get such a 25%+ cut, heh....anyway, your expertise is in photography? Or are you dependent on "other" experts in the field?

Attorneys can get as much as %50 in such cases. And would you not agree that from the answers I have presented to you many times that I sought outside experts like Groden ... that should have answered your question before you ever asked it.

I think thats great and yes, 50%, if they get to court...

whatever Wexler discussed if it neutralize Rahn arrogance, I applaud

But yet you compain when the same investigation processes Wexler used are implemented in debunking the alteration claims - Interesting!

ah, who is complaining? interesting? Is Stu Wexler a expert in film? Balckburst, eh? ROFL I don't need no stink'in experts on film

We're your cases civil or criminal and are you yourself an attorney, licensed in what US state?

When was the last time a crimial case was awared money - try using your head, David. I am not an attorney and the cases were tried in Illinois.

Bill, if the Z-film gets to court, ANY court, I suspect it'll be a criminal case! Ask Groden about those kind of cases

All

I've got some free time after this weekend ... Its been brought to my attention -- Mr. Colby has received a message from Raymond Fielding, author of 'The Technique Special Effects Cinematography.' I personally request to view the header and text of said email message, I'm sure forwarding same to a email address of my choice shouldn't prove difficult for Mr. Colby to perform. If the note from Fielding proves authentic, I'll personally invite Mr. Raymond Fielding AND Mr. Roland Zavada to appear on this forum and DEBATE the Zapruder Film and 1963-64 film compositing issues and techniques, I will post [in this thread, this weekend] the email request to both of them, complete with headers and any response from them via email or phone....

I'm sure between them they'll come up with 100 reasons to support the non-alteration position.

To show the breadth of my indulgence, I'll even utilize Mr. Colby and one other as my debate team partners (after I take Colby off the *tard pit* ignore list of course) the proviso: IF the Fielding email proves authentic... if true Fielding/Zavada can chose 1 forum member to do their legwork and post to the debate. The debate will last no longer than what 10days-2 weeks -- How's that sound?

Time to put up or shut up guy's!

Might break the attendence record for this board...

Might John Simkin grant this debate bandwidth?

David Healy

'John Dolva' wrote:

All lot of speculation and nonsense will be eliminated by having the currently national archives housed camera original Z-film forensically tested....

On this one full agreemnt.

For now , thank's for the exchange David. Food for thought. No doubt will revisit items in future.

_____________

Take care John.... seeya around!

that incompetent Herr Colby still making mucho noise around here.....?

Bill Miller wrote:

David, these trees were mature at the time of the assassination ... I simply shot a recreation photo 40 years later. There are only two alternatives here ... one is that you don't know squat about tree growth after one reaches maturity or the distance at which the photo was taken does not allow one to see small detail changes in size ... the latter going towards what Jack White is wanting to do with the subjects on the pedestal.

many, Many more alternatives than 2, so how long has the tree been there? -- as for what Jack did/does to his pedestal imagery is his business -- EVERYBODY measure from the same base, THEN begin the debate. -- apples to oranges, AGAIN --

dgh01: were these case suits filed by you, or were you a expert witness? Expert witness in what field?

The first suit was filed on my behalf after I investigated the matter for over a year and had sought my own experts after researching the subject matter in great detail. One of the things that I was most proud of was when my attorney told me one day that the experts in my case were surprized when he told them I was the client. I guess they had thought from my questioning them and citing information to them that I too was an expert in the case. So the moral is that one doesn't have to be an expert to discuss issues that experts have an interest in.

well, I think thats great -- to bad the attorney's get such a 25%+ cut, heh....anyway, your expertise is in photography? Or are you dependent on "other" experts in the field?

Stu Wexler is a prime example as he did a remarkable job on CPAN when he discussed the lead test conducted in JFK's assasination.

whatever Wexler discussed if it neutralize Rahn arrogance, I applaud

Groden did not participate in any of the cases I participated in.

dgh01: I suspect not, if you won money. Not bad for a cel animator, that a hobby, yet, still - ever was?

I'm not sure what you are saying, but I am sure that it has nothiong to do with the JFK assassination case.

Bill

ah yes it does -- pretty simple actually. A Bill Miller posting to a certain JFK board told me a few years back, he was a cel animator, cartooning in fact... Your not that guy? That being the case, it should not surprise lurkers who view JFK internet boards; film compositing discussion is beyond even those considering themselves JFK evidence "experts", film-photo or otherwise...

We're your cases civil or criminal and are you yourself an attorney, licensed in what US state?

[...]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

dgh01: well thanks for the supreme effort...

Below is a Moorman recreation photo that I shot with the naked eye. The overlay not only lets you see the gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window that I obtained in relation to Moorman's photograph, but you can also see that I had gotten the major tree trunks and branches aligned to near perfection.

dgh01: I can just hear the other sides attorney if something like this is presented in court -- "your honor and ladies and gentlemen of the jury; what we have here in Dealey Plaza, a tree and its branches that has NOT grown in circumfrence in 40+ years..." that in and of itself makes your photo overlay suspect.

[...]

btw, what court cases did you win and where? What capacity? -- If your a photo consultant I hope you didn't consultant Groden in the OJ fiasco...

I did all the investigational work in my 1997 case where I was awarded $750,000.00 - Robert Silberstein presented the case to a jury. In 2005, I won another verdict where I played a major role in the collection of evidence and a jury awarded me $565,000.00 in that case. James Carter presented that case on my behlf and both cases are a matter of public record. I had also assisted Silberstein on several criminal cases that he represented.

dgh01: were these case suits filed by you, or were you a expert witness? Expert witness in what field?

Groden did not participate in any of the cases I participated in.

dgh01: I suspect not, if you won money. Not bad for a cel animator, that a hobby, yet, still - ever was?

[...]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

I thought the issue wasn't whether optical film printing couldn't be done, but rather could it be done where experts would not be able to see signs of it. One should try and remember that there is a difference.

----------------

ROFL - Let me tell you about experts. Experts in Special Effects Cinematography -- Any 10 or 20 film/video compositing operator (read in 1963 terms: optical film printing technicians) can disassemble a special effects scene in most any film, then or now, without the aid of a script or outside influence. Primarily by watching the scene 5-10 times... Those same 10-20 will arrive at 5+ different ways of accomplishing the same filmic/screen effect sequence result.

Regarding the Zapruder film one should ALSO remember the audience that viewed the film AND the intended audience of said film in 1963-64...

There is not one, ONE physical reaction that Zapruder experienced on that pedestal that CAN'T be recreated in post optical printing, right down to how his breathing interacted with the panning and tilting of his camera. ANY latter day experienced Adobe After Effects artist can tell you that, and those that think operators/artists of 1963-64 vintage knew less, are fooling themselves... course they may WANT to fool themselves.

Query your pal Groden -- anything less from him, and I'll tell you Groden does NOT know the art of optical film printing... he might stop by and chat a bit, eh?

For those lurkers that want latter day info regarding the COMMERCIAL compositing art form, take a look (below URL) at whats been around for 7 years now and 7 straight OSCARS for special effects cinematography... sidebar: ALL of the Lord of the Rings episodes (and nearly every USofA theatrical release over the past 5 years utilizing special effects cinematography) were composed utilizing software that emulates optical film printing techniques created in the 1920's-30's, and earlier.

http://www.apple.com/shake/

8 years ago it ran thousands more, now $4 grand out the door, might want to load it on the new Quad 2.5Ghz Apple with 16Gig of RAM -- really sings especially if your staying in 16:9 Hi-Def video as opposed to 2.85:1 film -- Todays version of those Oxberry aerial image film printers of yore -- welcome to Hollyweird, right on your own desktop!

'Bill Miller'

Jack, your statement is not only incorrect about you being at Moorman's location when you took the Groden photo, but a mere glance at your photo in comparison to Moorman's can see that your pedestal in relation to the fixed points on the colonnade are way off. There is a downhill slope to the south p[asture and if you are off by 3 - 6 feet east or west of Mary's true location, then how tall people will look compared to the fixed points on the background of the colonnade with vary considerably. So once you go back and look at what I am talking about, please tell me again who is not paying attention.

[...]

Why don't you put us all out of our misery and go out and shoot from where you think the correct spot is and where Jack shot from, do the comparison and get back to us..

btw, what court cases did you win and where? What capacity? -- If your a photo consultant I hope you didn't consultant Groden in the OJ fiasco...

For what its worth, I've looked at both sides of the debate and I'm convinced that Zapruder film alteration (or the "Zapruder hoax") is on par with moon hoax stuff (and I don't mean that as a compliment). It just diverts attention away from more fruitful areas of research.

if your so sure of your position re the Zapruder film, why bring in Moon Hoax comments? -- personally I could give a xxxx less whether you or anyone else is handing out compliments, whose looking for them anyway? Mr. Colby? roflmao!

Perhaps you might spend some time dealing with "fruitful" areas of research instead of "diverting' your time and mine with the above

tom wrote:

That being, the US Military forced EVERYONE to shoot right-handed with the M1- Garand.

The reason for this is quite simple!

The ejection pattern for the shell casing of the M1-Garand, if fired left-handed, would send the hot/expended casing, directly towards the right eye.

There are numerous instances of eye injury, and I have one of those "Howell" cousins here, who was actually medically discharged and draws/drew a small disability check due to the injury to his right eye from having shot the M1-Garand from the left-handed position.

Therefore, in the US Military, you were forced to shoot the Garand right-handed, irrelevant as to whether you were or were not right handed.

[...]

There are evidently exceptions to every rule -- Having joined the ARMY -- 18 June, 1962 at Fort Ord, Co. A, 10th Battle Group, 3rd Training Bdge. Our group had the distinction of being the last basic training company to utilize the M-1 Garand as 'the' assigned Basic Training weapon. After our company completed basic trainning the M-1's were to have their bolts welded shut, the rifles (we were told) we're to be dumped in the Pacific Ocean...those familiar with Fort Ord know the Pacific was less than 2 miles away

In my BT squad, 3 of us were left handed, NONE of us were forced or coerced to change to right-handed shooting positions. We all shot EXPERT! I scored highest in the entire training battalion. Went to AIT qualified EXPERT with both M-14 and the .45. In Vietnam the .30 cal (air cooled), .50 cal and the 2.5 rocket laucher ALL fired [exception the .30cal air/.50cal) utilizing left the hand position... threw handgranades left handed, too...

FWIW

Michael Collins Piper wrote:

[...]

And then there's the point made by Dr. William Pepper, in his latest book on the Martin Luther King assassination, that Ruby and James Earl Ray's mysterious associate "Raul" were -- in 1963 -- involved in an arms smuggling operation that included an Israeli Mossad official. (In my opinion, based on published accounts of his career, that Mossad official was almost certainly Michael Harari.)

[...]

Knock-knock, excuse me Michael.... smuggling or selling what arms? M/C rifles amongst the weapons.

David Healy

John Dolva wrote:

[...]

I think it may be possible to make a case that various of these features could be planned for but not all of them and not so coherently. If so it would be an amazing landmark in film history. Particularly with time constraints,

a simple software company in Silicon Valley literally put the American optical film printing business out of business - another Silicon Valley computer company is rewriting television and film post production history, TODAY. That same computer company just became the biggest stock holder in the Disney Corporation... So you see, we're all about amazing landmarks in film history!!!

So, what time constraints are you referring to, John?

people involved,

whose involved?

possible leaks,

leak what?

and not least : Why bother in this way? The film doesn't seem to support the governments position.

it doesn't? 3 shots/two hits = the SBT - I believe that's the WC conclusion, thus the US governments and every Lone Neuter this side of the moon. And quite frankly, we've all seen how far the Grassy Knoll shooter theory has progressed over the years...

All lot of speculation and nonsense will be eliminated by having the currently national archives housed camera original Z-film forensically tested....

the magic happens or doesn't happen in post production... a example; who created the little ditty Hitler performed when he stepped from that Paris railcar while celebrating? How was that done and who did it? Wasn't on the German version.

Hi David

My understanding is that the little dance that you see Hitler do on the fall of Paris was created by the Allies, as this blogger notes--

"I'm reminded of a bit of footage I saw in a media class in college of Adolf Hitler, dancing a jig after accepting the surrender of France in June of 1940. This footage was played all over the Allied countries, showing Hitler stepping back and stepping forward as if he were childishly dancing at his victory. This enraged people in the Allied countries and showed Hitler to be a monstrous tyrant, but in actuality it was doctored footage of Hitler simply stepping backwards and forwards, looped over and over again and sped up to appear as if he were dancing. It was a masterful stroke of propaganda for the Allies, ridiculing and demonizing Hitler, but it was a fake."

And as Gregory J. E. Rawlins said about the use of propaganda wrote--

"'Seeing is believing,' we used to say; but that's never really been true. During the Second World War, newsreels showed Hitler dancing a jig after the fall of France in 1940. Hitler was many things, but a jig fancier he wasn't. He never did dance that jig---he just lifted his leg. It was Allied newsmakers who optically looped that leg movement into a jig."

Chris

hello Chris -- your correct of course.... and shh -- no such thing as optical film printing

David

'John Dolva' date='Feb 16 2006, 08:10 PM' post='55247'

No. I haven't seen it. How does it relate to the points here? I'd be paticularly interested in any suggestion/conclusions regarding the film as a whole. (For the moment ignoring the details of frames, but the thing as it is as a short film.

informative, shows how the Plaza has changedand other fine points as commented on by JCostella presentation at UofMinn and memorialized on DVD -- Finding the a-side of the camera original Zapruder film, would be a nice place to start and will fill in a few holes.

(Believe me, I have considered ignoring the odd person, but I think I would do myself a disservice.)

_____

just to bring the end of the last page up...(with correction)

(a look at some macro features of the zfilm as derived from :

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/pan01.jpg )

My 'counter' answer would be. Assuming an amateur. is someone with little thought based on extensive experience. He choose his spot carefully, which bespeaks thought. But I wonder how much he planned the shot. He knew of his 'vertigo' so planned for that. He did a brief test shoot.

"assuming he's a amateur" -- I assume he was on the pedestal - there are thjose that say, maybe it was he -- and still yet others that say -- prove that it was him, there's no visual record ID'ing him -OR- Sitzman as being on the pedestal... makes no difference to me who shot the film ... Yes, the perfect location for a camera -- too bad we've never seen the quality of imagery the camera was capable of producing... Pre-planning a shot? hey, the limo had one direction to go; down the street ... I would suspect any nervousness on his part about shooting this simple scene extended no further than making sure the camera had film and wound... His vertigo? Where and by whom is Zapruder's 'vertigo' verified, other than what we've been told on various JFK boards? Was his test shot taken from the pedestal? You know, you DON'T have to roll film to take a test shot. I'm sure Zapruder was aware he had only one chance of capturing this, why waste precious film?

He then filmed the motorcade from beginning to end (supposedly).

However without actually having performed the full shot previously, studied the result carefully in detail, and adjusted his plan to suit...

...he had the limo in the viewfinder. ::: His relationship with the filmed object was through the viewfinder. Not through preempting, or knowing where the object was. So he followed the limo until he noticed it drifting out of his view and he then adjusted by tilting, certainly by raising and lowering the camera. BUT, only insofar as he was able to continue viewing through the viewfinder. Therefore the pose or attack of his head is the critical point.

pose or attack of his head, interesting phrase.... based on film/photos taken from across the street from the pedestal, I can't make out what he or sitzman are actually looking at, or even IF he has the camera viewfinder to his eye -- all supposition when it comes to imagery of the Zapruder pedestal....

Overall, his 'turn' was a result of, turning his head, turning his upper trunk, turning his lower trunk/legs and 'shuffling' his feet.

again see above...

I'd say the turning of the head with eye on viewfinder and limo in viewfinder accounts for the stepped panning...

...in combination with...

...following the Limo in the vertical. This would be more jerky.

inducing vertical tilt camera moves is a simple process in optical film printing, adjusting the height of a 'process camera' over a specific amount of frames -- same -o- same reaction to gunfire

And perhaps all this more so in an older amateur.

the magic happens or doesn't happen in post production... a example; who created the little ditty Hitler performed when he stepped from that Paris railcar while celebrating? How was that done and who did it? Wasn't on the German version.

____________________________

Cinema verite'

I would then assume that the technique, if applied, would look aged. I suggest it doesn't. I suggest the Macro nature of the film is valid today also.

look aged? The verte style is running rampant these day's, it's EVERYWHERE films for TV, films for theater, news, docu's even studio -- I'd use the term, auNatural

And, having worked in Silicon Valley for years I'm well aware of the term Macro, how do you define: the Macro nature of the film?

an additional height study, Moorman this time

(yeah, yeah...I know that his knees are bent...so don't

bring that up)

Jack

based on this photo Jack, I'd know ole Abe anywhere... and MarilynS., she looks terrific too!

And the camera, why anyone can tell it's a B&H414, right?

John Dolva wrote:

Oops, sorry. I worded that very badly.

there should be a carriage return between the two sentences.

He did a brief test shot at the beginning.. and then he filmed, this time filming(suopposedly) from the beginning to the end without break.

My mistake.

Not a big deal in my book, thought I'd save you some time answering those pesky private messages from you know who!

What say we keep onhere till Len says nay and perhaps we'll have done before then. I wouldn't mind if Len would finish wording the poll and restarting it perhaps. I find it hard to choose from the available choices at the moment.

Colby is no longer on my screen, only time I see anything posted by him is if I'm reading a respondent to a thread where as a particpant he's quoted....

Have you seen JCostella DP Elm Street panorama created in 2002-03? Was used for/at the Univ. of Minn Zapruder film Symposium?

John Dolva wrote:

My 'counter' answer would be. Assuming an amateur. is someone with little thought based on extensive experience. He choose his spot carefully, which bespeaks thought. But I wonder how much he planned the shot. He knew of his 'vertigo' so planned for that. He did a brief test shoot. He filmed from beginning to end (supposedly).

dgh01: "He did a brief test shot. He filmed from beginning to end"

ahh, during his test shot he filmed from beginning to end? I'll remind all lurkers a test shot-pan covering all of Elm St, requires expending a few feet of film (depending on the rate of camera pan)

Is there a cite for that "supposedly", John.

Maybe we can continue this conversation in another thread? Appears we're getting off of 'thread' track here, maybe I'll take a moment and remind the poll followers, the only poll that mattered regarding the Assassination of the President of the United States was taken when the Warren Commission cast their votes to approve or deny the WCR! It's been downhill ever since... Course if the Lone Nutter's amongst us has contrary evidence I'm sure a few hundred million folks or maybe a billion or so, would appreciate seeing it....

[...]

'Pat Speer' wrote:

[...]

Tom, I don't get this part of your theory. It appears you're saying that the bullet that entered the hairline exited out of the large skull defect. Is this correct? If so, then why was there not a second spray of brain mist?

the 3rd shot was removed from the camera original Z-film. Alledged Zapruder camera original, Z-313 represents the 3rd and final shot, in Tom's scenario it's the 2nd shot, 3rd shot hit JC[? I think] there was NO first shot miss, the first shot hit Kennedy in the neck (as the initial FBI/SS and Time-LIFE recreations suggest) ...that how it goes?

And if the bullet continued at a downwards angle to hit a nearly horizontal Connally in the back of his right armpit, why didn't the bullet continue on towards his heart? Instead of flattening its trajectory and REVERSING its right/left direction and heading downwards in his body toward his right nipple? And then changing angles again and basically pulling a 90 degree turn from its original trajectory to injure Connally's thigh? I don't think this trajectory makes much sense once one considers Connally's wounds. If you have any overhead drawings demonstrating how this might work, they might prove useful in demonstrating this trajectory.