David G. Healy

February 8, 2006

I'm David Healy ... I don't prefer the nickname Dave. Born: Boston Mass., 1945.

Studied Film/Television/Radio at College of San Mateo - San Francisco State University and University of California (Continuing Education Credits).

USArmy 1962-65 - honorably discharged, stationed Saigon; MAAG-Vietnam Feb '63 thru Feb '64.

My father knew JFK - was a Boston labor union leader - delivered many union votes for Kennedy, during his early political career.

Began professional TV career in the number 5 ADI market in the United States: San Francisco-Oakland Bay area shot TV news utilizing CP-16 Mag film cameras. US Television Netowrks (National and O&O's). FCC Commercial Broadcast Radio-telephone licensed. TV Station Technical Director; on-air operations, 16-35mm tele-cine, plum-i-con/sat-i-con broadcast cameras [studio, location EFP remote Pro sports units w/satellite uplink operation.

Ampex and Sony certified (2" - 1" - 3/4" and various 1/2" analog, present day 1/2" and 1/4" digital - formats) same videotape tape broadcast recorders...

Maufacturer fieldtest[ed] multiple commercial film/video cameras...

Nominated and won various industry awards for broadcast/corporate media production, animation-compositing and post production technical excellence...

Work worldwide doing numerous television and film productions. I live in the United States, consult many Silicon Valley high-tech companies --

Split residence Reno-Tahoe and Las Vegas, Nv. area

I have NOT videotaped GG Allin tours, I have worked on multiple '60's-'70's and 80's Bill Graham Productions -and- I've spent a few nights in a Holiday Inn....?

I've been a member of the Education forum for a while...

Professional resume, available on request

David,

Sorry to intrude, but that point about your Dad knowing JFK is interesting. Did you ever get to meet JFK when you were a kid ?

You're not intruding on me, Mark... To answer your question, I was told by my father I was with him when he spoke with JFK, was quite young. Evidently Boston [local] newspaper press photos exist [some place] of JFK and other union leaders or the era. I have no recollection of the event.

I didn't become a Democrat till age 6 :huh:

February 7, 2006

I should add that Blakey and his lawyers would have had a

hard time discrediting me, since IT WAS BLAKEY WHO HIRED

ME AS AN EXPERT IN PHOTOANALYSIS FOR THE HSCA. How

would it look to jurors if he attempted to discredit me.?

Probabably about as bad as his "photogrammetry" ploy,

which backfired on him, and for which his staff apologized

to me after the lunch break.

Jack

Thats really funny stuff Jack!

To dicredit you is simple...just ask you a question about perspective or light and shadow...or really most any question about photography...and your answer will discredit you.

And BTW..his "photogrammetry ploy" worked perfectly. It made you look the fool. And more importantly showed you to be ignorant of the very subject in which you were attempting to profess expertise. Pretty powerful stuff really. You got toasted.

envy doesn't become you, rofl..... you notice something, Jack? This guy posts nada, zippo, zilch when it comes to JFK related imagery.... just makes noise....

Wof wof...slink back to your dog house...guard dog.

<flush> you're outt'a here too, not worth the bandwidth 2 down --plonk--

February 6, 2006

I should add that Blakey and his lawyers would have had a

hard time discrediting me, since IT WAS BLAKEY WHO HIRED

ME AS AN EXPERT IN PHOTOANALYSIS FOR THE HSCA. How

would it look to jurors if he attempted to discredit me.?

Probabably about as bad as his "photogrammetry" ploy,

which backfired on him, and for which his staff apologized

to me after the lunch break.

Jack

Thats really funny stuff Jack!

To dicredit you is simple...just ask you a question about perspective or light and shadow...or really most any question about photography...and your answer will discredit you.

And BTW..his "photogrammetry ploy" worked perfectly. It made you look the fool. And more importantly showed you to be ignorant of the very subject in which you were attempting to profess expertise. Pretty powerful stuff really. You got toasted.

envy doesn't become you, rofl..... you notice something, Jack? This guy posts nada, zippo, zilch when it comes to JFK related imagery.... just makes noise....

February 5, 2006

OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE JACK WHITE IS TO BE CONGRATULATED FOR HIS

COURAGE INSIGHT AND PENETRATING RATIONAL

INDUCTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD..........

A THOUSAND THANKS TO THIS BRAVE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN............

HURRAY

FOR JACK WHITE

AND

JACK WHITE

HURRAY

............

Shanet - drugs are bad, okay?

I suspect Shanet will survive the above inference. My question, why insinuate something like that? You don't agree with Jack, that's fine -- NASA won't respond to Jack directly (or even in-directly to my knowledge) - that's fine too...

We're left with your opinion and opinions from others ALL opinions, nothing official - only the original record and the ever reliable internet cyber-warriors -- so we have discussion....

February 5, 2006

'Tim Gratz' wrote:

Bill, of course the CIA had a conflict of interest, and probably more, in failing to discose the participation of Joannides in the JM/Wave operation. And it was Jeff Morley who discovered that. It is yet too early to know where his discovery may lead.

But from a journalistic standard, Mr. Morley did have a conflict of interest that should have been disclosed.

thats what editors are for, yes?

Reporters do not normally cover stories in which they are personally involved, at least not without disclosure.

if the reporters on-the-clock, receives compensation, of course they'll cover a/the story they're "personally" involved in! I could just hear a editor responding to a reporter whose calling from on-scene, telling him he can't cover the story because....

It is not a question of the "Washington Post" trying to stifle Morley or it would not have printed the review in the first place.

Did a review appear in the NYT? If so, some review would be conspicuous in its absence from the WPost, NO?

February 3, 2006

There has been some discussion of why the Kennedy family has been so reluctant to endorse the assassination research committee which has been attempting to solve the assassination.
While I gladly cede the sincerity of each one of the members in trying to solve the crime, I respectfully suggest that a lot of the stuff posted on this Forum could very well explain the antipathy of most members of the Kennedy family to "assasination research". I do not think the Kennedys would approve smearing someone with the brand of a "possible assassin" on the basis of the scantest possible evidence. If I were a family member, I would certainly want my family name dissassociated with such recklessness.

This is not to deny that many of the posts made here are the product of great intelligence and hard work and could be helpful should there ever be a new investigation. If I did not think so, I would not be spending as much time reading them as I do. I would just encourage members not to make frivolous accusations against those unable to defend themselves.

Can you imagine the trials and tribulations you're putting Fidel Castros' family through? Somehow, I suspect the Kennedy family will get through this -- they've made the last 40+ years without your support...

Ron, in my opinion means, motive and opportunity are an insufficient basis to accuse someone alive or dead.
Presumably, anyone with sufficient financial resources had both the means and the opportunity.

You could claim that anyone who disagreed with any of JFK's policies had a motive to kill him but that is ridiculous.

I think there has to be some evidentiary basis, even if slight, to link someone to the assassination before mud is slung at the decedent.

Else all we do is muddy the reputation of many people who are as "pure as the driven snow" (I can hardly remember what the stuff looks like!), a real shame, IMO.

STOP it! ROFLMAO -- you've just put every DA's office out of business, and its only February.... LOL

February 3, 2006

The question of the “jet splatter” theory came up in the Zapruder thread and was wondering what your assessments of it were. I imagine that most JFK researchers dismiss it out of hand but I would recommend reading the article in which it was proposed and consider the credentials of its author Luis Alvarez winner of the 1968 Nobel Prize in physics among other distinctions. John Costella this guy ain’t.

Jet splatter theory:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8_4_Alvarez.pdf

Alvarez bios:

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...lvarez-bio.html

http://www.nobel-winners.com/Physics/luis_...er_alvarez.html

Hi Len,

Honestly -- I'm NOT under the influence of cold meds on this post!

I do not dismiss the jet effect, but I do not necessarily subscribe to it, either. (How is that for an evasive position!?)

There are several principles of physics involved in considering the jet effect, but the main ones being Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Angular Momentum. Newton's second law of motion (for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction) creeps in to the explanation as well. These are, of course, valid and demonstrable principles of physics. The question is not with the principles involved, but are they being applied correctly to the situation at hand. A secondary question revolves around the completeness of the data set used to create the theory.

So...

Those elements that favor the Jet Effect:

1 - Conservation of energy and angular momentum indicates that the bullet's energy had to, in effect, go somewhere.

2 - If the "jet" we see is, in essence, "forward and right" then the compensatory reaction would be "back and left"

3 - Some test shots fired into an object did show jet effect behavior was possible.

Those elements that call into question the Jet Effect:

1 - The assumption that gave rise to the jet effect is the concept of the ballistic pendulum. The ballistic pendulum's motion is partially restricted in one axis (negative z-axis) and is largely unrestricted in the other two. This is not necessarily consistent with firing into a human skull, which is motion damped in all directions, but not entirely motion restricted in any. In other words, the model that gave rise to the idea may not be the best one for the situation.

2 - There are additional forces that are not accounted for in the theory. Neuro spasms are certainly possible, and virtually impossible to verify, measure, or replicate. The effect of the back brace is also not known.

3 - We do not truly know the angle or location of entry and exit of the headwound. There is confusion and debate on this issue. It makes a difference when considering angular momentum.

4 - The test for plausibility of the jet effect took place using mellons and packing tape. This has convinced me that the jet effect is possible when one shoots at mellons wrapped with packing tape. On the other hand, I'm not the least bit convinced that this is a plausible substitute for a human head. The nature of the materials, when under extreme forces and stress, may not be sufficiently similar to make a valid comparison. The "jet effect" could be exactly as described, but only when the materials involved exhibit certain characteristics...

On the other hand, while I do hold a degree in Physics, I'm not a Nobel-winning Ph.D. by any stretch of the imagination!

When I get some time, I'll try to write some more on the physics of this...

Colby? LOL...Be curious to see your take on the 'Jet Effect', Frank --

Costella also holds a degree in Physics, PhD, as does David Mantik ,MD. and Ph.D -- Don't believe either one blesses this theory... I won't interupt the thread again....

February 3, 2006

Thank you David. I should point out to Len Colby (who has made a fuss about this) that David joined the forum when it was not a condition of membership that you submitted a biography.
David, could you add http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6029 to your signature (see My Controls). It will then appear everytime you post and any member can then see who you are.

DONE, John !

February 3, 2006

A Nobel Prize (1968) winning physicist from Berkley who studied the Z - film said it did.

...

He did?

I read the entire article and it doesn't state that the limo did anything but decelerate at a notable rate. His hypothesis centers around lifting from the accelerator pedal of a heavy car in a low gear in response to a postulated siren sounded by one of the motorcycle policemen.

The z-film as we have it (along with the Nix film, et al) does not show the limo stopping...

Frank I didn1 say anything about the limo stopping. I should have been clearer Alvarez said it slowed "suddenly". I edited my previous post for clarity.

Len

Sorry, Len. I must've been more under the influence of cold medicine than I realized! I read your post and was completely convinced you mentioned stopping... Sheesh -- I need to get some sleep!

Maybe Senor Colby will post other DP films which show the Limo slowing on Elm Street --

I suspect a full frontal assault from the **jet** effect crowd, soon!

February 3, 2006

I'm David Healy ... I don't prefer the nickname Dave. Born: Boston Mass., 1945.

Studied Film/Television/Radio at College of San Mateo - San Francisco State University and University of California (Continuing Education Credits).

USArmy 1962-65 - honorably discharged, stationed Saigon; MAAG-Vietnam Feb '63 thru Feb '64.

My father knew JFK - was a Boston labor union leader - delivered many union votes for Kennedy, during his early political career.

Began professional TV career in the number 5 ADI market in the United States: San Francisco-Oakland Bay area shot TV news utilizing CP-16 Mag film cameras. US Television Netowrks (National and O&O's). FCC Commercial Broadcast Radio-telephone licensed. TV Station Technical Director; on-air operations, 16-35mm tele-cine, plum-i-con/sat-i-con broadcast cameras [studio, location EFP remote Pro sports units w/satellite uplink operation.

Ampex and Sony certified (2" - 1" - 3/4" and various 1/2" analog, present day 1/2" and 1/4" digital - formats) same videotape tape broadcast recorders...

Maufacturer fieldtest[ed] multiple commercial film/video cameras...

Nominated and won various industry awards for broadcast/corporate media production, animation-compositing and post production technical excellence...

Work worldwide doing numerous television and film productions. I live in the United States, consult many Silicon Valley high-tech companies --

Split residence Reno-Tahoe and Las Vegas, Nv. area

I have NOT videotaped GG Allin tours, I have worked on multiple '60's-'70's and 80's Bill Graham Productions -and- I've spent a few nights in a Holiday Inn....?

I've been a member of the Education forum for a while...

Professional resume, available on request

January 31, 2006

Terry, not only that, but I now moved to a job in a very nice quiet place with far more spare time and a wonderful employer on top of it! Plus the weather is outstanding!
But does anyone else go through the same screen as I do and see the "as" underlined? It makes no sense to me.

So when did you move to Havana, Senor Gratz? I won't bring out the Fidel shtick...

January 31, 2006

Some here complain that I am not a professional photo analyst, even though
I have worked in the field for more than 40 years.

Out of curiosity, I Googled PHOTO ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY DEGREE PROGRAMS.

The number of universities offering courses or study in photo analysis...ZERO.

Then I Googled PROFESSIONAL PHOTO ANALYSTS/ANALYSIS.

On about the third page I found one investigative laboratory which offered many

services for scientific investigation of crime scenes and the like. One item listed

in long list of services was analysis of photos. After several pages, I gave up

hope of finding any professional photo analyst anywhere.

The laboratory I found said they were "registered EXPERT WITNESSES in Federal

Court". Well, I can counter that a Dallas Federal Court accepted me as AN EXPERT

WITNESS AS A PHOTO ANALYST in the case of Wilson vs Blakey, and I was

prepared to testify, but the case never came to trial.

So if you cannot specify where I should have studied to become a TRAINED PHOTO

ANALYST, please quit using this lame accusation to villify my reputation. As far as I know,

only the MILITARY and NASA train people to be photo analysts. There is NO CIVILIAN

NEED FOR SUCH A PROFESSION.

If you know of even ONE person who is a professional full time photo analyst, please

tell us. If you are one of those who criticize my qualifications, please list YOUR OWN

qualifications in any message criticising my lack of a degree in photo analysis.

Jack

HEAR - HEAR! or is it, Here - Here

January 30, 2006

Superb example of fine work! Well done!

Thanks Ed..I'm glad you can see him.All the best.

Duncan

Relax, Duncan ... in the foliage shadows cast upon the stockade fence in Moorman's Polaroid ... Ed also saw the images of Cops with cameras. I found his posted image at the time and created an overlay showing where he had gotten it. (see below)

Bill Miller

JFK assassination/researcher

whoa there Bill, you see all sorts of things in 6th floor window reflections don'tcha?..... amazing -- Hi Gary

January 30, 2006

Evan wrote:

[...]

Lastly, Jack makes some comments about the Kapton foil seen at the base of the LM. As has been stated many times before, Jack White is NOT an aeronautical or aerospace engineer – his training is in advertising. Jack White is NOT an expert in spacecraft design and construction. If he has a point to make, he should provide evidence from experts in that field that the materials were not used in the construction of the LM or that the material would be incapable of carrying out the task for which it was designed.

Evan,

May I quote the following [from your post above] in response to another forum thread? Nothing to do with NASA!

quote on

"If he has a point to make, he should provide evidence from experts in that field"

quote off

David Healy

John Simkin re: Members Bios · January 29, 2006

Is it a requirement, better yet; are you forced to post here? The defacto voice in support of the Zapruder film? Now THAT would be a interesting turn of events! What's TRULY amazing here, There are quite a few with the same questions as I, IF it was, WHY? So here's a little gem for you from a website a few years back:
No, David ... I am sure this site was created for jerk-offs to run up threads with meaningless schoolyard banter that seldom, if ever, cites actual JFK related data ... give us a break!

The difference between you and most everyone else who ask "why?" is that they do address the issues with facts and save the drama for the drama queens. Just like your mentioning Scott - why? You aren't up against LNrs here, but rather CT's wanting actual facts to be presented instead of you just making assertions without evidence to support what you're saying. We aren't looking to be right as much as we are wanting to be accurate.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

What?

tsk-tsk, CT's? I'm not newby, Bill. save it for them .... ROFLMFAO

Are you suggesting PDScott's quote is wrong?

Post your post production qualifications, we can then move on -- Gott'a be the 100th time I've asked, what's the problem? -- Mine are out there -- 35+ years post production editing and compositing -- verifiable! Let the lurkers determine your qualifications for passing judgement on the subject matter. Roland Zavada or Ray Fielding can explain the process to you -- If you don't want to do that, buy Ray's book -- ALL over the internet these day's --

Maybe he'll send me a commission ....

John Simkin re: Members Bios · January 29, 2006

Bill Miller pressed on....

[...]

Where do you come up with such nonsense? I want David to debate the evidence, but instead he runs up response after response with replies that never had anything to do with the subject matter. Do you need me to go copy and paste some of them for you!

[...]

Ah, excuse me -- those that wish to debate/distract or just make noise, press on -- As for me; I debate/discuss with NO one unless I am fully aware of their **motion** media post production qualifications-- NO ONE I'm aware of, knows your media (film/video) post production qualifications, if in fact there are any. Debate Peters.... or of course Len -- better yet, how about Craig Lamson

Feel free to post commercial broadcast 'productiuon' or film credits here?

For the lurkers out there, the only reason why this forum isn't beseiged with endless .gif animations re the Dealey plaza "seamless" films, is the 'well planned' upload limit restriction on Forum posters -- otherwise, the JFK anti alteration film crowd would have thousands, upon thousands of posts filling forum pages! A huge, non-sensical waste of time creating expensive bandwidth problems -- post animation to ftp sites, provide a url

Also for lurkers benefit -- when HOAX was published in 2003 a not so surprising (in my eyes anyway) event happened on the JFKLancer board (Lancer --which BMiller played a signicant re-organization role early on - I believe he provided more than technical support in the reorganization of the Lancer board - I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong ) -- I personally could not post to any of the lancer Zapruder film debate (was locked out) re Jim Fetzer's: The Great Zapruder film HOAX... Did I piss and moan about that? Nah! --

To this day - the non-alteration crowd can't counter, with any sense of authority John Costella's thesis -- no matter how hard they try...

and I STILL can't claim the camera original Z-film is altered -- makes on wonder why the

DP crowd insist on keeping the Z-film issue in the forefront

-- who cares if the Z-film was altered? Well, I and others do. Me, confirmation from the technical standpoint -- hence all the credibility attacks -- attacks, from those with no published signs of expertise in the 'craft' of post production compositing video and optical film printing -- including; Kodak's Roland Zavada -- who in fact, will NOT debate anyone regarding film effects printing techniques, WHY? He simply doesn't know that end of the field. (I suspect he's a bit more familiar with that end now) No big deal! If in fact, Zavada made a trip to Florida to discuss with Raymond Fielding Z-film alteration subject matter, to me, that's another sign of Roland Zavada's investigative skills AND thourghness - Let's have Bill get Fielding here...

aside: I'd presume NOT to counter Roland Zavada's authority regarding film property composition, manufacturing of same or how motion picture cameras function. His entire report, in which I'm fully aware, a great piece of work -- nothing of consequence regarding/concerning film alteration ... I don't believe that was part of his 'charge' -- Doug Horne who posts here now and again, whom worked directly with Roland Zavada (and the HSCA) investigation may or may not confirm same...

John Simkin re: Members Bios · January 29, 2006

I must admit to a certain sympathy for Mr Healy's position here. I have no idea what his views are about the myriad "conspiracy theories" which exercise so many contributors -- this is, after all an "education" forum, not a "conspiracy" forum -- but I, too, have been hassled by Mr Simkin about my lack of photo and threatened with suspension from the forum unless I provided one forthwith. Despite my technological ineptitude, and with Andy's assistance, I provided a photo. It is, therefore, a bit annoying to see that some members seem to be mysteriously exempt from the requirement so rigorously enforced on others. Perhaps it's a conspiracy...
Mike Tribe

Educator

Mike --

My interest surrounds the John Kennedy Assassination, only. The Zapruder film in particular. Other's far more knowledgable than I about others... I've been on and IN the public record, regarding same for years ...

EXEMPT? Exempt, from what Professor Tribe? It is professor is it not?

It seems that whereever I go on the internet, I have a following... pests actually!

DH

John Simkin re: Members Bios · January 29, 2006

Dave you asked me for my photo 3 times in 15 minutes then once again 2 days later. You also started a thread about it. What was that obsession about? Funny that you were so adamant that I comply with one of the forum’s rules but feel that you are under no obligation to comply with a similar one.
If one goes back through the forum responses that David Healy has made to date ... it would appear that he is not on this forum to offer actual data concerning the JFK assassination, but rather to have a place to jack around for a more polite way of putting it. Somewhat like the Warren Commission did in the 26 volumes ... Healy runs up threads with a lot of meaningless nonsense replies which seldom, if never, address the issues in an apparent attempt to derail any actual research information from being shared. In other words, a reader has to wade through pages of meaningless responses like the ones you cited in order to see the relevant material to the topic being discussed. If what I have said here is not true, then let someone explain why Healy would post so many times in such a short time span over such nonsense as cited in your opening post. I am personally amazed that it has been allowed to go on. I am of the opinion that the next worst thing to doing what Healy appears to be doing is actually allowing it to continue.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Is it a requirement, better yet; are you forced to post here? The defacto voice in support of the Zapruder film? Now THAT would be a interesting turn of events! What's TRULY amazing here, There are quite a few with the same questions as I, IF it was, WHY? So here's a little gem for you from a website a few years back:

"...A sign that we researchers are on to something significant, and of contemporary relevance, is the vigorous defense of the "lone nut" hypothesis, and the resistance we meet to our critiques of it, from dominant elements on the right (Buckley), the center (all of the mainstream media) and the left (Cockburn and Chomsky). The virulence of the attack on Stone's JFK, the mindless praise heaped on Posner's fallacious book, are symptoms of a general weakness. All the people in this mindless anti-conspiracy consensus rightly see a major challenge to their First and Second positional analysis, not just of the Kennedy assassination, but of American politics in general. Peter Dale Scott

I believe Peter Dale Scott posts here on ocassion

the entire article can be found here

http://www.assassinationweb.com/scotte.htm

so....

Amazing, clutter on my screen cleared up once you "ignore", or in old time lingo <plonk> the nonesense -- so, listen Bill if your so interested in what I look like, you can buy my HOAX presentation DVD re: the Univ of Minnesota Zapruder film get together, hell, you can buy ALL presenters DVD's, find out what we ALL look like - even David Lifton... Or buy the book HOAX, my photo is in there a few times, actually the photo posted accompanying my posts re this forum is a video frame lift used in the book, I believe [JSimkin did that for me, I couldn't get it to work at the time, either]....

January 29, 2006

As most of you know my research centers around potential conspriators rather than the actual moments surrounding the death of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.
With this disclaimer I would like to ask those of you who have researced those "moments" of death in Dealey Plaza,

"Do you believe that it is possible that Oswald could have been "A" shooter on that fateful day?"

Jim Root

LHO, unwitting co-conspirator? Sure!

Shooter? Serious doubts!

January 28, 2006

Top Post

chow, south of the border -- you've only been a slight nusiance, served a purpose, thanks

binLadden???? where you posting from loser, Terhan?

Save it!

Nice company you keep, Miller! Where's the varsity?

to the 'tard pit with dear ole Len -- <plonk>

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

Someone should compile all of Healy's responses on this forum and put them all together to see if he ever actually addressed a single JFK asassination matter. I'm thinking that Ronald Reagan was making more sense in his last hours of life than what David has done in most of the responses he has made to this forum.

He made more sense than Healy in "Bedtime for Bonzo" too! Healy avoids answering questions he doesn't have a glib answer to like bin-Ladden avoids pork chops

January 28, 2006

'Bill Miller' wrote

Who questioned OR touted Walt Disney as leading the way in animation? They had a great facility, made great cartoons and fantasy musicals -- so WHAT? You young fellas think thats all there is to Optical film printing. circa 1963-64? ROFLMFAO EVERY film created for the past 80 years has optical special effects, even what you've reduced to foolishness posted here -- probably not a single person here can tell me the film compositing process used in these excellent examples -- Let me give you a hint Bill --- seeing that your grasping at straws, want to see some real work and for you film buffs:

Orson Wells and ROSEBUD, Citizen Kane - 1940 -- the trot on over to Google and search Linwood Dunn better yet:

___________________

David, I didn't mention Disney or their movies to show that optical printers were being used in 1963/64, but rather to show their limitations ... I used Disney Studios because they were the best of the best and when one takes a close look at their film edits - they can find the flaws - PERIOD! Sure, when a film is run at normal speed - the flaws are not detectable, but that is not what we have been talking about.

You have shown a single image and made the claim that alteration could be achieved without detection by way of an optical printer.

dgh01: Are you one of the few not understanding when I posted re Z347/357 .. I showed [for research purposes ONLY] the process: how frames can be deleted from the Z-film and covering up same, by using on the Z-film as source.... Hello!

The Zapruder film is compilation of images that can be viewed in sequence.

dgh01: I'm impressed

What I did was show that when one takes film frames, such as those in the Disney movies, and looks at them under magnification and/or by comparing the various border editings from frame to frame

dgh01: then surely you have a reference of someone, ANYONE that did the same inspection of the Zapruder frames, I'll give you a break here anytime after 1968 and before 2000? What's a border edit? In all my years of editing (35+ years) never heard of a border edit

... the differences and changes that take place are noticeable to even the untrained eye.

dgh01: they are -- you've just rewritten, down through the ages moviegoers experience

Now if you actually have a piece of altered film that was created by an optical printer in 1963/64 that doesn't show any signs of flaws under close scrutiny when the frames are run in sequence, then by all means - PRESENT IT!

dgh01: Get the original Citizen Kane, run it -- you tell me if you can see any flaws when the film is running normal speed on VHS or DVD (pulldown added for 29;98fps) hell, try and run it at 18.3fps and see if you can see any flaws

Until then, IMO you are just making claims pertaining to the realm of possibilties that have no evidence to support them.

dgh01: of course they're claims, based on special effects compositing experience - what's you claim in disputing those claims? "It's impossible! ROFLMFAO. So tell us what and where those Disney frames came from AND were they in the film final release? -- For all I, or anyone hereabouts including lurkers; those may of been test strips -- do you understand why optical labs do that sort of thing? None of those problems would of made a answer print or release print, none of them -- unless you can prove otherwise, of course

as to what he's posted? ROFL he might try documenting what he's posting, where it came from and above all credit the films studio -- Apple is lurking, trust me!

You Craig can assure me and all the lurkers hereabout that what we're seeing in these images were part of the release film, YES or NO?

If you can't get back in the peanut gallery -- right next to Colby -- watch as Miller falls apart.... he's gonna have post something declaring his authority to speak re the Zapruder film -- I haven't seen anything other than opinion, so far -- BAD sign.....

This is almost too good! Stay tuned lurkers we'll get back to the Zapruder film when the DPlaza denziens wear out"

Someone should compile all of Healy's responses on this forum and put them all together to see if he ever actually addressed a single JFK asassination matter. I'm thinking that Ronald Reagan was making more sense in his last hours of life than what David has done in most of the responses he has made to this forum.

dgh01: ah Bill -- I hate to break this to you -- this is what I've been posting to for a while now, this is where your at, at this moment: The Education Forum > Controversial Issues in History > JFK Assassination Debate > Zapruder alteration - possible? T'aint Lancer ole buddy!

I suspect that Reagan crack won't endear you to Dallas Republicans ....

Bill Miller

JFK researcher/investigator

January 28, 2006

Lamson wrote:

Thanks Bill. Your examples support the point I have been making for some time. Its not the equipment...screw all of this crap about "Its an optical printer". Thats just a piece of kit. No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork.

__________________

It's not the optical printer -- it's not the composites -- its the artist

as to what he's posted? ROFL he might try documenting what he's posting, where it came from and above all credit the films studio -- Apple is lurking, trust me!

"No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork."

You Craig can assure me and all the lurkers hereabout that what we're seeing in these images were part of the release film, YES or NO?

If you can't get back in the peanut gallery -- right next to Colby -- watch as Miller falls apart.... he's gonna have post something declaring his authority to speak re the Zapruder film -- I haven't seen anything other than opinion, so far -- BAD sign.....

This is almost too good! Stay tuned lurkers we'll get back to the Zapruder film when the DPlaza denziens wear out

January 28, 2006

Mr. Colby wrote

Could such alterations have been done so perfectly as to be undetectable to close inspection? I am referring to matte lines, feathering etc. Numerous researchers have studied the film for decades and found no such signs of alteration, Roland Zavada one of the World’s leading film experts studied the film and found no such signs of alteration and your co-authors obviously did not find any signs of such alteration or they would have said so. Zavada, Fielding, Oliver Stone, Mark Sobel (director of “the Commission” and dozens of other movies / TV programs) and others said such alterations definitely would have left such tell tale signs. George Lucas had problems with matte lines in the Star Wars films of the late 70s – early 80s and re did some sequences when he re-released them 1997 - 2004.

[...]

______________

then you'll have no problem posting right in this thread their professional opinions regarding the Zapruder film, correct? Right here:

put up or shut up time Mr. Colby -- we call them "cites" - verifiable cites! Hardball time! :lol:

Gonna have to dig a little deeper than the 'Director' of the Commission, Len -- Christ the best effect in that is a lap dissolve, what the hell does he know.... now if Mark Sobel is a TD with much post experience (film and video) that's a different story, we can talk...

help this guy out Craig.....

Throwing around these guy's names like you do can get nasty stateside.... where are you again?

So let's start will Roland do you need his phone number, email address?.....

ROFL -- the birds? those are jpeg/.gif artifacts

If you do respond try to keep it civil and arrogant free,but i doubt you have the mental capacity to restrain yourself in your quest for the ultimate supreme ego.
Duncan

Let's compare mental capacities - shall we? Here is a partial reply you gave to me when I had not even responded to you, but rather to another poster ...

"Still talking crap i see Bill since i was kicked off Lancer for simply not agreeing with you.

I've never known anyone to crawl like a wriggling worm and suck ass the way you do at Lancer,it's sickening..jesus..... "

So speaking of Jesus ... wasn't it he who said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." You are a blow-hard Duncan who is unwilling to take responsibility for his own doing and that includes your poor research practices. I will continue to respond to your faulty claims concerning the JFK assassination, but I will refrain from taking it to the level you did with Conway on Lancer and me here on this forum.

Bill

looks like your reached the absurd .... nice move

January 28, 2006

Bill Miller wrote:

In 1963/64, Disney Studios were leading the way in animation. They employed the best people in the field to utilize the latest tools available to create their animations. Below are some small examples taken from their 1964 movie release of "Mary Poppins". It appears that the best that Disney Studios had to offer could not do what David Healy has suggested as being possible at that time. Can you see the giveaways in their work ...

____________________

Who questioned OR touted Walt Disney as leading the way in animation? They had a great facility, made great cartoons and fantasy musicals -- so WHAT? You young fellas think thats all there is to Optical film printing. circa 1963-64? ROFLMFAO EVERY film created for the past 80 years has optical special effects, even what you've reduced to foolishness posted here -- probably not a single person here can tell me the film compositing process used in these excellent examples -- Let me give you a hint Bill --- seeing that your grasping at straws, want to see some real work and for you film buffs:

Orson Wells and ROSEBUD, Citizen Kane - 1940 -- the trot on over to Google and search Linwood Dunn better yet:

http://www.photosonics.com/Milestone%20HTL...wood%20dunn.htm

follow the bouncing ball...... gee, they just named (this momnth) a new theater at the Academy of Arts and Sciences Hollyweird local after this Dunn guy -- he's after all, the father of optical film printing....

NOW, get Fieldings book there's names of countless pre 1963 movies where major, not minor MAJOR special effect cinematography was performed. Dunn's in it too! I bet you don't realize that one of the examples Jack posted, showed some injuns by the river may of been a "glass painting" Can you imagine something that big covering all that area in film frames - fooling all those movie goers -- who, I assume like the Warren Commission members didn't view the film one frame at a time. Again, thats a assumption on my part -- maybe FBI agent Shaneyfelt could tell us.....

Oh Bill, would you care to point out where one might find the optical block in theOxberry photo Jack so graciously posted.....

Now back to Disney -- Would you like a free tour pass to PIXAR? Evidently even Disney smartened up, they just jumped into bed with Steve Jobs. Actually Apple Computer just became (this week) the largest shareholder of Disney -- now we got my type of people involved in disney, too! I suspect Disney's work will only get better, the themeparks that is -- leave animated theater releases to those that don't know what a **flop** is...

I'm not impressed Bill..... do check out the Dunn info, after all -- without him there'd be .....

well, there'd be no digital image compositing software for video and/or film (of course film, ALL forms of film for media is on the way OUT) KODAK may be on the way out, unless they re-invent themselves.....

Profiles

Forums

Events

Store

Posts posted by David G. Healy