David G. Healy

John wrote: David, I should have elaborated a bit. The older person is more likely (just likely not necessarily, so I think this is posssibly the weakest suggestion) to have various vertebraes 'frozen' and/or the lubricated 'pad' in between the vertebres degraded/damaged with lubrication supply degraded. It's just a fact of life. So a turn of the head in the horizontal plane could be easier than a combined turn and dip/rise. For everyone though, I think if one tries one can see, it's two separate movements coinciding, with the dip/rise more 'jerky'. while your eye is in the viewfinder: turn your body from waist up [pan] lift your arms [tilt] -- simple as pie I think I understand your correction re tilting. Thank you. Could you elaborate on why a natural looking movie would be easier to artificially create, please. a film produced using a handheld camera translates to camera motion [cinema verte] quote on [Wikepedia] Cinéma vérité aims for an extreme naturalism, using non-professional actors, nonintrusive filming techniques, hand-held camera, genuine locations rather than sound stages, and naturalistic sound without post-production or voiceovers. The movement was fueled as much by technological as artistic developments. During World War II, cameras had become small enough to be portable and unobtrusive. Even more important, cameras were now quiet so that natural sound could be recorded at the same time as filming. As Bill Nichols points out, the reality effect of a new mode of documentary representation tends to fade away when "the conventional nature of this mode of representation becomes increasingly apparent". In other words, new modes initially appear to be true, unvarnished "reality" on the screen, but as time goes by that mode's conventions become more and more obvious. Such is certainly the case with cinéma vérité whose conventions can now appear quite mannered and open for critique. quote off edits/optical printing can be covered or understood as amateur camera work Just a little something to think about Yes, they did damage the film. No excuses for leaving that out. Thank you.

'John Dolva' wrote: [...] Some thoughts and suggestions... Some macrofeatures of the zfilm that to me indicates that the zfilm as we have it today is genuine. I'm not talking of those short and long versions where individual frames are dropped, nor about the basis for this panorama which is one of the main versions which is known to be altered by so called 'distorion correction' and 'cleaning', nor about color etc 'enhancement', but about the overall structure of the film. It was taken with a movie camera where the viewer and the film had separate lenses. So when the camera was filming something far off the viewer and the film were looking at the same thing. As the object filmed was closer to the camera the viewer focused on the Limo but beacause of a compensating feature the film was filming an area above this. dgh01: Basically AZapruders pan/framing down Elm Street was good. You raise a valid point regarding the framing being off when the limo was approaching directly in front of him. This also can be achieved in optical film printing The camera was being operated by an amateur who didn't consider the dip would mean a continual drift in the verttical that was there fore not planned for and compensated for smoothly. dgh01: again, this would make defect in the panning would make film alteration much easier The camera was being operated by a middle aged/elderly person. A smooth diagonal pan is less easy to achieve by an older person. dgh01: what? Older person? The camera weighed less than 4 pounds, loaded, he also had somebody providing support... The pan as the camera must be lowered in order to keep on the limo is across down across down. dgh01: yes ...as the limo draws near and goes down the street the camera must be raised as the limo goes towards the underpass. The pan becomes across up across up, to the end where the limo is once again centered. dgh01: a pan is across left-to-right or right-to-left and vertical movement of the camera is called a "tilt, either up or down -- so what your explaining here is panning and tilting at the same time After the shot the regularity of the pans is broken. An obvious reaction of the camera person. dgh01: every movement of the camera is a reaction of the camera person. This effect can also be induced by optical film printing techniques One final thing; Zapruder was a amateur cameraperson, possibly this was the first thing he ever filmed -- we don't have any proof of other film he's shot, we have nothing to compare his DP filming techniques too. Had a pro shot the Zap[ruder pedestal film, I suspect we wouldn't be having this conversation -- altering a film with clean pans/tilts would be neigh on impossible. Makes the "splices" in the Z-film much more interesting -- as a added item, LIFE never commented on how the film of the century was mishandled (broken), twice! Nor were responsible LIFE Magazine employee identified... [...]

'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] Duncan - Jack's Zapruder Waltz had already been dead in the water and Debra knew that you were not offering it up because you have new information on it - she knew you were trying to run up forum space by getting the pot stiirred. Here is the link to that thread for those who 'wish to know the truth' as you like to put it [...] ___________________ Maybe "dead" in the eyes of some, not that I pay much attention to that end of the argument/photo evidence... The photos comparison has raised a question in my mind; based on Groden's pic, on or off the pedestal -- heights of these folks, front or back, doesn't wash...

Jim Hackett wrote: [...] Some people's research is weak so bluster and abusive behavior are used to cover deficiencies in that work and to avoid REAL PEER REVIEW of said work. Jim __________ REAL peer review? Interesting post to a internet forum... just how do you determine who the peers are and what makes them peers -- I suspect the one and only primary qualification is, breathing the same air as others? You been around this stuff as long as a few here have, you'll understand why CT's don't stand for Lone Neuter BS, PERIOD!

Al, Much appreciated. A concise evaluation of how good the shooters needed to be (from someone with knowledge in this area) was what I was trying to obtain. (although the opinions expressed by others have also been helpful). So despite the fact that the organisers made every effort to accomodate the shooters, the shooters were required to be among the very best in their field. Probably obvious in light of the importance of their job, but I was curious about this aspect of the assassination. Thanks again. Might I recommend: ayoob@attglobal.net Or else search: Massad Ayoob or else: http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/biblio.html Ayoob, Massad The Ayoob Files - The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View in: American Handgunner, March/April 1993 Gun experts examine a number of issues related to Oswald's MC rifle, his shooting skill, ballistics, and the reaction of Kennedy to the shots. The single-assassin theory is found to be well within the limits of plausibility. Perhaps Mr. Simkin will approach Massad and see if he will discuss the accuracy; integrity; capability; reliability; operating speed; etc; of the Carcano Rifle. Then again, Mr. Massad Ayoob may just tell everyone to read and review what he wrote for American Handgunner some 13 years ago. Tom, It appears Massad Ayoob has competition out there -- Contrary to some who opine hereabouts on my leanings in this case, I could careless if Oswald (the one arrested in Dallas) is/was invovled as a SHOOTER or, a unwittingly accomplice... If, as the WCR states, Oswald missed the *first* shot - how'd he deal with the immediate 'unknowables'? IMHO, from what I've read, he just doesn't have the right stuff... David

Waste of time? Perhaps, for some. With or without the Z-film, fuzzy imagery or NOT, had Oswald lived, he'd of been found guilty in 1964! Of that, I have no doubt. I wouldn't worry about acquiring/finding photo experts. None on this board would be consulted, for either side...IMHO The question lingers: why was it necessary to eliminate Oswald before he was tried?

A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test. I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing. BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted. "...even more laughable..." (?) I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what? So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao! Well good for you David, I'm so happy for you. Perhaps you can show us a nice film composite image you have made with your 8x10 camera. You are right..the groundglass tests have nothing to do with resolution tests and EVERYTHING to do with the skill levels of the "experts" on your side of the coin. Laughable is the perfect word. BTW I placed a nice bowl of table scraps in the your dog house...eat up guard dog. well thank you very much, when you can afford one we'll mach trannies.... so, ah again; what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Oop's, that's right you answered that didn't you -- NOTHING! Much ado about nothing -- pretty much were all your arguments end up! But fun to watch none-the-less

A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test. I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing. BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted. "...even more laughable..." (?) I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what? So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao!

http://users4.ev1.net/~smyers/jfk2/media.html Thanks, David. I had completely forgotten that material was on Scott Myers' site. I tried to download the interview but was unable to do so. Hopefully it is a temporary problem. BTW, do you know anything about the material located within the 'Inside the Dealey Plaza Looking Glass' link? There are two photos displayed, the first one bearing a striking similarity to a young D.H. Byrd. Just curious. James Sorry James -- not familiar with the images.... David

wow, following that logic; if you disagree with the reasons we're in IRAQ, makes you anti-democracy -- who sent Jesus to appear in front of what Roman magistrate, again?

Ron wrote: [...] When in Rome, do as the Romans do, and say only nice things about them. ______________ Not so sure, Rome events re: feeding Roman Christians to the lions would entice the Christians to write nice things about the Romans? Or did I miss your point, satire or otherwise....

http://users4.ev1.net/~smyers/jfk2/media.html

One additional question: the yellow *curb* stripes, did Mr. West comment as to what were they for? If not, do you have any idea? Thanks for the above 3 posts, Tom... David Healy

'Thomas H. Purvis' wrote: In order to assure that the record and history are correct regarding the integrity and honor of Mr. Robert West*, and that he played no part in the WC lies and coverup of facts of the assassination of JFK, it is my hope that should anyone at any time question the integrity of Mr. West, that they be thereafter referred to this topic. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Since many of the CT group has at one time or another attempted to impune the integrity of virtually everyone else, I would expect that sooner or later Mr. West will fall under the umbrella of their claims. ________________________________________________________________________________ _________ Having corresponded with Mr. West on several occassions, as well as having visited him in his home on at least two separate occassions, there can be little doubt that Mr. West played absolutely no intentional role in the misrepresentation of facts as relates to the survey work in Dealy Plaza, which was directly related to the assassination of JFK. In Fact, Mr. West fully questioned the work of the WC, and merely "wrote it off" as a bunch of politicians and FBI personnel who did not know what they wanted and/or how to go about achieving it. In that regard, Mr. West shared many stories about those items which "did not make any sense" during his WC survey/re-enactment work. As a result of the open, forthright, and honest discussions which Mr. West shared with me, it was quite obvious that he played no part in the WC obfuscation of the facts related to the assassination of JFK. In fact, Mr. West was quite astonished when I personally presented to him, at him home in Dallas, that information relative to where the WC had "changed" data on his survey work. He also could not believe that they had gotten away with the manner in which his actual survey was admitted into evidence in a "sealed" envelope without ever being opened and examined. In that regard, Mr. West, who was now fully retired, shared with me copies of all survey notes and survey plats related the the assassination re-enactments in Dealy Plaza. To that end, few if any were even aware of the fact that Mr. West had done survey work, as well as having completed a survey plat, for Time/Life Magazine on 11/25/63. This of course also includes the later work done for the US Secret Service and completed on 12/5/63. As well as the later work done for the FBI and completed on 2/7/64. Then there is the work as done for the WC and completed on 6/25/64 in which the impact point for the third/last/final shot has been deleted, yet still contains the impact point for the first and second shots. Which too was apparantly unacceptable! And ultimately ended with a "re-drawn" survey plat which now deleted the First Shot, and had a line drawn shortly prior to this shot at "Point A"*, and now showed only impact point for the Z-313 head shot. dgh: Tom -- does the above square with what we see in the Zapruder camera original, more recently called the MPI DVD piece? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *With this little "slicky boy" move the WC created a large survey plat which showed positions and angles to "Point A", on the map/plat. Previous survey plats showed lines drawn to the impact point for shot#1, however even that copy of the other survey data as presented into evidence, is reduced to the extent that one can not distinguish between the fact that the SS Plat is drawn to Shot#1 whereas the WC Survey Plat in drawn to "Point A", which was located by the WC shortly prior to impact point for the first shot. dgh: did Mr. West work with photos provided by the SS/FBI when conducting his Dealey Plaza survey work for same? If so, who provided the photos? And, where those photos part of his submission when he completed the work? ALL survey work (Time/Life--SS/FBI (1 &2) demonstrate the impact point for shot#1, with the downward angles drawn onto the survey plat. dgh: Time-Life? when was their DP survey work completed? Were they copied, under seperate cover, the SS/FBI plat work? The WC made this work disappear and thereafter "blend" in to "Point A"! In addition, of course, to making shot# 3 impact point disappear as well. dgh: Referencing current Z-film frame numbers - re Mr. West's plat work for the SS/FBI, that would put the 3rd shot impact point happening around what, Z-355? Closer to the knoll stairs on the north side of Elm...? Course these frame numbers are arbitrary IF the Z-film was altered, further down Elm none-the-less? Thanks - David Healy

Top Post -- Thanks for posting this, Margret -- nice to see it every now and then --- ______________________

'Tim Carroll' wrote: [...] After closely studying the Moorman Photo in the course of an exchange about Classic Gunman, I began to feel that I was seeing more images behind the wall. I sought Jack's help with getting "the best quality Moorman photo obtainable." I was surprised to realize that I couldn't intelligently answer his questions: "Which version? There are several. The early Zippo print without the thumbprint? Early wire service prints with pedestal cropped out? Later wire service prints? My copies made from the original? Gordon Smith copy from original, etc. etc. etc.? All are different." So I'm seizing this opportunity for clarification and/or an assist from Bill Miller regarding which version is the purest (perhaps "rawest" would be better, knowing Jack's position about tampering). I also question the thumbprint: how can there be versions without it? there in lies the major problem regarding DPlaza 11/22/63 imagery. We knew years ago what the Jack's and Gary's of the research world were studying and reviewing (lineage included) These day's with the internet and such, nobody deals the lineage issue.... As for the coke bottle, I'm a bit confused about that issue. Admittedly, I can't see it in the foregoing posts. But if it was at the retaining wall corner in Willis and Betzer, then it must also be within view in Moorman. Correct? here's that problem again -- to answer your question -- yes, it should be there! However when images are posted nobodys asks for said photo lineage -- A researcher could be working with fine resolution digital .tiff images (Most of JackW early work was with actual FILM stock) -- post a 320x240 .jpeg of same and wallah -- the bottle may be gone due to JPEG compression artifacting--- or worse yet, we got Photoshop cowboys riding the pixel range -- they just cloned where the bottle may of been with surrounding area imagery. Course if that is determined and someones called for that this is what you'll hear; "hey it wasn't me, who knows where that image came from..."

BMiller wrote: [...] nor do I think Craig is suggesting that this was the case persay. [...] persay? roflmao -- baloney! Follow Lamsons' bouncing ball, if JWhites work re badgeman was a farce, so was GMacks!

Lamson dronned on.... Nice try White too bad its such a poor attempt to save your ignorant butt. Lets cut right through Whites bs and cut to the chase. He manipulated this image. His contact sheet offers the proof. By increasing EXPOSURE he threw away details until he had a NEW IMAGE that fit his needs. hmm, where have i heard THIS before? And thanks for pointing out that this contact sheet is a copy of a slide which is a copy of a print which is a copy of (another print or) the Moorman original. It totally destroys your silly claim that this is "badgeman"! Does that mean Gary Macks' silly "bageman" claim goes up in smoke? It was Gary and Jack that made the discovery, correcto-mundo, Lamson? You guys need to get your act together In other words, the details of the original Moorman in this 1/69 of an inch area has been changed beyond repair. IN other words....its notihng near what the orignal Moorman might have shown. Its simply a FABRICATION . keep going like this and those in the Z-film alteration crowd will allow you to do their work -- LOL White, its been perfectly clear for many years that you are among the ignorant when it comes to photography. Its a real shame your mis and disinformation has spoiled the minds of so many uninformed folks for so long. You should be ashamed of yourself. must be time for Lone Neuter gold star handouts... What institution did you say houses your work Craig? I think there's someone in this thread that has had that honor bestowed -- t'aint you BTW, calculating the proper exposure based on the length of a bellows is a very simply math calculation. Its not difficult at all...FOR AN EXPERIENCED PHOTOGRAPHER. I'm not suprised you found it difficult. this guys' a hatchet job for the anti-Zfilm alteration MALCONTENT crowd.

Tom wrote: Thanks for bring up these points, Tom. ALL of them ! Course one has to define "rationale and reason" when it comes to possible Z-film alteration. As Moe Weitzman said in his HSCA testimony; "there are tests that can be performed... Mere fact that posing possiblity of same, get's more than a few hackles up.

when they're needy for solace, the anti-Fetzer crowd loves to gather together, moan and groan about all things Kennedy, hence all thing Democratic -- when it comes to the Zapruder film and possible alteration of same, their noise level increases to the highest of heights... the Lone Neuter obsession with that subject is remarkable.... and they control the film evidence - which makes it astounding... The mantra the detrators sing is: Maintain the status quo. Questions and Ideas are for the little folks.

In Iraq, apparently we've a rising star, 60+ and he's not the only one...

Perhaps it would be nice to identify exactly what constitutes a altered film in the minds of those posting regarding the issue. Do you agree, John, the reason for ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza 'film' altering is/was performed to cover up a conspiracy in the murder of the President of the United States in 1963 (his murder for whatever reason)? Yes David, I do. At this stage in my learning about it I can say with some certainty that there have been presentations that distort reality by frame rate, frame drops, cropping, 'enhancing', so called 'cleaning' and 'distorion corrections' etc of that nature that has a lot to do with presentation in order to support a preconception or to divert attention from the items that cast doubt on a theory. You're right that a definition of alteration helps. It seems to me that given the risk of having outright alterations in the sense of changing an image comnpletely or partially or recreating it is an endeavour frought with danger in the sense that how can one know one has all the unaltered images out of the way or that technology doesn't / will not exist to detect the frauds? I think that is something a conspiracywould tend to balk at and would rather go for croppings and complete removal of images. Probably as you say the research would leap ahead with full public release of autopsy photos and films . I think the fact that those who are in a position to do so and yet don't do so is significant. thanks, John -- appreciate your response.... I concur David

Bill Miller wrote: [...] John ... did you not understand what I have said about this matter? Taking a poor quality print that has limited color tones and trying to draw faces on the backgrounds is ludicrous. Once someone thinks they may have seen something on a poor muddy print, would not the next step be to go to the best print possible and see if the image is really there or not? I mentioned doing this to Duncan, but he pretends to be too dumb to know why this should be done. I have now addressed the same reasoning with Jack White and I await to see how Jack responds. I am betting that you must also see the significance of the points I have raised. Bill shall we take your inference to mean, you're the LAST word on the matter, ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza photo related matter? If so, you might want to let us know your qualifications as being SUCH.... curious minds might want to know...

Perhaps it would be nice to identify exactly what constitutes a altered film in the minds of those posting regarding the issue. Do you agree, John, the reason for ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza 'film' altering is/was performed to cover up a conspiracy in the murder of the President of the United States in 1963 (his murder for whatever reason)?

Thats an overlay? It's called a NTSC composite video frame, made up of two fields, one representing the odd scan lines the other representing even scanlines -- when individual fields are viewed one is seeing 50% resolution of the frame, quite frankly the entire MPI Zapruder film DVD appears at half resoulution, its horrible -- Stick to the otherside of the camera, Gary. Or give Roland Zavada a call A tape op or studio technical director, your NOT TV lingo - 2 fields = 1 frame - the MPI video/DVD may have upwards of video3 frames representing 1 film frame (with drop frame it becomes more confusing), hence anything you see these days on videotape or DVD, Z-film, etal, appears on same at 30fps regardless of its offical film speed rating; in the case of the Z-film 18.3 fps.... So there more than enough issues regarding the Dealey Plaza films (including the Zapruder Film, more so than ALL other films). Timing problems arise whenever any of these films are reviewed and researchers peg frame numbers with realtime Nov22nd '63 DP events, or comparing the seamless film of Dealey Plaza with each other Until competent film researchers are granted FULL access to the alledged camera original Zapruder film or, one of the three original optical film prints, the circle**** will continue. Hell, the individual Zapruder film frame 4x5 trannies shot during the NARA Z-film photo shot would be fine at this stage of the game... [of course I know a few people who'd question anything that came from someone other than themselves shooting the frames] BTW, who owns those trannies used to create the new and improved Zapruder film, Gary? They at the 6th Floor too? Keep on plugging, Marcel -- your work is viewed by more than a few.... David