David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
a prime example of shuck and jive -- Mr. Colby da dufus be back .... you might want to place your bonifides right below here -- we'd like to know you INexperience re motion picture film and processing and manipulation of same, if you have any experience please let us know... till you demonstrate your *expertise* just step over there and play in Bill Miller's sandbox....
David, now I'm confused ... was your remark about "shuck and jive" pertaining to John's reply or to the one you were writing back to him that I copied and pasted above? I mean, maybe someone can read your remarks above and tell me what part of your reply wasn't just "shuck and jive" as you call it.
Bill
to my dear friend Len Colby, as I said clearly in the post (you know the guy that has newly found experience in optical film printing --) as I said earlier; I suspect he, amongst others, are QUITE new to the term "optical film printing") ..... feel free to post your bonifides too! You won't find me objecting...
Somebody, somewhere has got to know whether or not non-alterationist have any professional film-video credits.... you guys do freelance work, color correcting, post production 8bit, 10bit color - compositing, editing, AVID, FCP - HD, SD, DV, hell anything?
If you've done Adobe After Effects -- you'll go right to the head of the line, we can talk turkey! We can compare Adobe After Effects with the Oxberry Printer Jack so graciously posted, how many heads on that Oxberry 6? - 8? that would equate to 6 or 8 layers in After Effects - we could of started out with something a little simpler, but what the hell.
-
Here is a 1963 photo of an Oxberry Optical Printer that David has been
trying to tell you about. IT WAS NOT NEWLY INVENTED IN 1963, BUT
WAS AT LEAST 30 YEARS OLD BY THAT TIME. This is the type of
equipment used to manufacture the Z film. Please quit demonstrating
your extreme ignorance. Engage your brain before operating your
keyboard, please.
This page is about a dozen pages back in the encyclopedia after the
previous page. Go to your public library and read up on this stuff,
which as David says is widely available.
Jack
Heaven forbid, Jack -- that they should read, what's in it for them?
-
Anyway...David is correct.You are completely out of your depth here as his expertise and knowledge in this particular field is superior to anything you can offer..
Healy has yet to demonstrate that he has ANY experience doing film compositing with an optical printer. At this point I suspect he has none.
The fact is non deniable..The technology to fake films beyond detected fakery existed in 1963 and earlier..live with it.Roland Zavada who knows far more about the subject than you and Healy begs to differ. Apperently Fielding and Oliver Stone agree. Do you have any evidence to support you claim?
Alteration done on a computer proves nothing such technology was not available in 1963. Evidence of fakery is harder to detect on a computer image - the original film has already been examined for evidence of fakery..I have uploaded a faked Zapruder frame.I wonder how many people who have never had access to this frame could spot the fakery.99.9%plus i suspect.Poor Healy was doing so poorly on the other thread he started a new one as a distraction. Nice try Dave I don't think it will work. I propose that no one else responds to this thread and we instead continue debate on the "Four Questions" one.
a prime example of shuck and jive -- Mr. Colby da dufus be back .... you might want to place your bonifides right below here -- we'd like to know you INexperience re motion picture film and processing and manipulation of same, if you have any experience please let us know... till you demonstrate your *expertise* just step over there and play in Bill Miller's sandbox....
David you never cease to be an asshole do you? As for establishing bonafides you have yet to demonstrate any experience compositing without a computer.
All you can do to back your claim that such alteration was possible back in 1963 is mention a book without quoting any passages. A book who's author says you're wrong.
Gott'a follow the threads Len ole buddy -- I've already requested Fielding or Zavada to drop by and show me the errors of my way's -- no luck so far -- why don't YOU give them a call, better yet -- get a message to me Zavada would like to speak -- he's done that before, he knows who to call -- same number same person as before -- I'll get the message within a hour...
Man, I see your name and Gary's name viewing this thread eachtime I've come here today.... you move to Dallas, Leonard?
-
Duncan, apart from the color adjusrtments, sooner or later someone would notice the duplication of the mc cop. The feathering isn't all that precise either. Also the perspective and the location of it in front of the SS guys and so on gives it a 'doesn't make sense' quality that's quite different from the frame by frame changes from just tilting the camera lens slightly.
John and Dunc
Here's a few things for consideration --
IF the Z-film was altered, WHY? Simple Ans: To reinforce the SBT - assure the guilt of LHO thus confirming to the world, they'll be no WW3 over this "Dallas" incident.
IF the Z-film was altered who was the intended audience for said altered film? Simple Ans:The WC prior to the end of February 1964... What happens after that, who cares...
We understand in near recent past the alledged camera original Zapruder film was altered, MPI did so, in fact -- colorized, slo-moed, reframed, stabilized frames, deleted frames (accident?) -- amongst other things... package up same, sold thru BLOCKBUSTER (amongst other places) ALL for our viewing pleasure, of course.
Since then we've been infested with 'no nothing types' claiming film expertise, with no demonstrable credit list not to mention the ability to judge work in a industry they hadn't heard of prior to 2000...
Is there anyone around today who can tell you, me or anyone else, what film and prove what film; the alledged Zapruder camera original or one of the three original optical prints, OR a dupe of one of the original three optical prints -- the WC screened in their chambers? If there is, I'd like to know what control number was on the head of the reel when THAT film was laced up.... If the screend film wasn't the camera original...
Quite frankly there's a few elementary questions that need answering regarding immediate Zapruder film screening (at Kodak on 11/22 and Zapruder's office 11/23 with and without Stolley ) split or unsplit...
Keep up the good work, Dunc! ----
Don't let a few "seamless DP film advocates" dim you research beacon -- that's what they're hoping for -- they can't prove you wrong, they keep up their losing mantra -- "it's impossible" -- they've already lost the "impossible" battle, now it's a PR battle....
David
-
Poor Healy was doing so poorly on the other thread he started a new one as a distraction. Nice try Dave I don’t think it will work. I propose that no one else responds to this thread and we instead continue debate on the “Four Questions” one.
a prime example of shuck and jive -- Mr. Colby da dufus be back .... you might want to place your bonifides right below here -- we'd like to know you INexperience re motion picture film and processing and manipulation of same, if you have any experience please let us know... till you demonstrate your *expertise* just step over there and play in Bill Miller's sandbox....
-
TOP POST
CRAP? Oh, my. Does this mean, yes or no: you HAVE educated yourself regarding Optical film printing - you can speak with authority and address the subject matter ---
an aside: it's been my experience when it comes to anything JFK, those that wail the loudest about publications are those that have not read the publication --
Your professional qualifications as a "photo researcher are? Somehow that's never been discussed in public -- why is that? I'm sure lurkers would like to know...
referring to me as "idiotic" does not endear you with those researchers that are looking for answers nor simple endorsements of the status quo-- most researchers here [and elsewhere] know how the discredit game is played.... your providing the perfect example....
crap - idiotic (whats next) so professional
Oh, when was the Zapruder film last laced up on a projector, again? you forgot to answer that one
Hi Gary!How's the new job going?
______________________________________
Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years -- I haven't seen, touched or inspected the alleged camera original film much to my chagrin, why would I claim otherwise -- WAS it possible? Now THAT'S another story -- of course it was POSSIBLE.... makes one wonder what all the howlings' about whenever Z-film possible OR outright alteration is brought up.... $16 million dollars for a film no one can see or touch...
So, when was the Zapruder film last laced up on a projector, again?
Your position is so idiotic that it is little wonder that you are the only person I ever hear carrying on about it. I don't see fraud in the some of the worlds most priceless art, so should I expect them to hand some pieces over to me for inspection so I can validate what I don't see - that's plain 'stupid talk' IMO.
"Easy fix tools"? Why Bill, you haven't read the book HOAX have you? Very complicated tools and some, not so complicated tools, all to do easy fixes, if one knows how.... Hundreds of examples....
That book (The Great Zapruder Hoax) was crap! I wasted good money on a book claiming all this film and photo alteration when there was none there to be found. It appears that after reading the book - you also came to the same conclusion as well ... so why keep telling people to read something that didn't do what it claimed it would.
It's very simple, Bill you're the expert in Dealey Plaza films .gif-.jpeg thumbnail animations....and all the compression artifacts that goes with it, -- post the official Z-film time line, we'll procede from there --
As for, "Wait for me?" Should I be impressed that you and Lamson wait for me? ROFLMFAO.... You actually think I'm doing you bidding -- get real man, you're defending the Z-film, AND why it wasn't altered, remember?
If you want to know about the Zapruder film ... read Richard Trask's new book. As far as waiting for you ... I believe that is what you who asked us to do just that in a previous post ... should I go back and read it to you?
so, for the last time: get someone with post film credits here that will tell me I'm talking the impossible -- post haste! You and Lamson have wasted enough LURKER time - there's a few around here that have caught on to the game...
You have yet to show anyone anything - so what are we supposed to dispute? Your examples were so bad that a half blind chimp would have reasoned through the differences in just minutes. Now who has wasted who's time?
Bill Miller
JFK assassination researcher/investigator
-
David Healy is observaing and stating; yes, alteration could be done to the point of being non-detectable, and CERTAINLY not detectable (by the uninitiated) when a film is running at 10fps, 18.3 fps, 24 fps, 29.98fps and 30fps
Thanks for recognizing the 15 minute achivements... imagine what would happen in todays timing with 45 minutes and a computer... we'd be arguing over the grass texture, that's a easy fix too!
I think that most everyone is more interested in what "easy fix" tools they had in 1963/64. Besides, if you are going to promote how easy altering a film was in 1963/64, then you should do a half way good job in 2006 just to make what you are saying appear somewhat credible.
Tell me, WHO praytell would be looking for motion blur in 63/64? WHO considered that the Zapruder film was altered, or hinted it was during the time period between 63/64 till 1967? No one I suspect....
But this is 2006 and still as you have said ... there is no proof that you've seen that the Zapruder film has been altered. All we have is someone claiming that it was possible 43 years ago and not showing a very good job of doing it himself with todays tools.
You're premise is faulty, you assume, ASSUME the alledged Zapruder camera original is just that THE original, of course if you're a WC defender...
And you assume that the Zapruder film is possibly altered though you cannot pinpoint any evidence to support your thinking.
As for shakey Abe's camera work? Makes the job that much easier, not harder --
Yeh right ... it makes it so easy that you failed miserably at it.
Post me and the rest of the lurkers; a clear and concise time line of ownership re: the Zapruder camera original film, the exact place it was stored, who handled it from 22 November 1963 thru TODAY (with affidavit) . Should be pretty simple, the most viewed film, in the history of FILM.... Make that job a little easier -- I'm more interested up Nov 22nd till LIFE turned the film back over to the Zapruder family...
Ahhhh ... back to 'I think it is possible that the moon is made of cheese, so prove to me it is not' way of thinking. So it appears that we waited for you to do as you always do and that is to say you are going to show us something and it turns out being a joke.
Bill
__________________
Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years -- I haven't seen, touched or inspected the alleged camera original film much to my chagrin, why would I claim otherwise -- WAS it possible? Now THAT'S another story -- of course it was POSSIBLE.... makes one wonder what all the howlings' about whenever Z-film possible OR outright alteration is brought up.... $16 million dollars for a film no one can see or touch...
So, when was the Zapruder film last laced up on a projector, again?
"Easy fix tools"? Why Bill, you haven't read the book HOAX have you? Very complicated tools and some, not so complicated tools, all to do easy fixes, if one knows how.... Hundreds of examples....
All this nonsense from those that have no conception what I'm talking about -- I suppose I should apologize for not making myself clear enouugh -- considering the sources and nearly 3 years since HOAX, I won't ---
Have you got in touch with Mr. Zavada or Mr. Fielding either one? Either will do... -- maybe Pat Speer can dig up someone in LA that has a *optical* credit or two -- Certainly naysayers currently posting to this thread haven't any credibility re the subject matter.
It's very simple, Bill you're the expert in Dealey Plaza films .gif-.jpeg thumbnail animations....and all the compression artifacts that goes with it, -- post the official Z-film time line, we'll procede from there --
As for, "Wait for me?" Should I be impressed that you and Lamson wait for me? ROFLMFAO.... You actually think I'm doing you bidding -- get real man, you're defending the Z-film, AND why it wasn't altered, remember?
so, for the last time: get someone with post film credits here that will tell me I'm talking the impossible -- post haste! You and Lamson have wasted enough LURKER time - there's a few around here that have caught on to the game...
-
And this brings what to the table David? Other than to show that your computer comp skills are crap?
And of course the BIG question is when are you actually going to do this ON FILM?
What you posted is meaningless and very poorly done I might add. I'm glad this was not for a paying customer.....
Right! So it appears that David Healy is saying that film alteration could be done so well back in 63/64 that it basically put experts out of business ... that motion blur between frames could not be detected when spliced into one another ... that Zapruder's constant up and down tilting of the camera which bends the vertical lines between frames could be altered by mere splicing in such a way that no one could tell that it was ever done ... and that the cut lines such as those around Clint Hill which stick out like a sore thumb against Altgens clothing would go unnoticed - did I get that right?
Bill Miller
JFK assasination researcher/investigator
_______________
David Healy is observaing and stating; yes, alteration could be done to the point of being non-detectable, and CERTAINLY not detectable (by the uninitiated) when a film is running at 10fps, 18.3 fps, 24 fps, 29.98fps and 30fps
Thanks for recognizing the 15 minute achivements... imagine what would happen in todays timing with 45 minutes and a computer... we'd be arguing over the grass texture, that's a easy fix too!
Lest you or anyone else around here forgets, NO one, least that I know or have heard of has done any, ANY forensic testing on the alledged Z-film, nor has there been report of same. Nor has any individual that I know of held the alledged Z-film in their hands, including those at the 6th floor museum, much less put it to the test that which Moe Weitzman [sp.?] suggests in his HSCA testimony.... You do know who Moe Weitzman [sp.?] is, correct?
1st, what experts were put out of business in 63/64?
2nd, as a artist/cartoonist I suspect you know what travelling mattes are?
3rd, Are you suggesting *feathering* around a mattes edges was impossible in 63-64? Be careful, this isn't your typical cartoon cell animation!
Makes no differences, what's in the way of incoming images -- incoming replace all outgoing imagery
Tell me, WHO praytell would be looking for motion blur in 63/64? WHO considered that the Zapruder film was altered, or hinted it was during the time period between 63/64 till 1967? No one I suspect....
You're premise is faulty, you assume, ASSUME the alledged Zapruder camera original is just that THE original, of course if you're a WC defender... -- I'm not hindered with either of those burden -- I assume little regarding this murder, other than Kennedy's was shot dead in Dealey Plaza -- and that includes the evidence of same -- ALL of it
As for shakey Abe's camera work? Makes the job that much easier, not harder --
Post me and the rest of the lurkers; a clear and concise time line of ownership re: the Zapruder camera original film, the exact place it was stored, who handled it from 22 November 1963 thru TODAY (with affidavit) . Should be pretty simple, the most viewed film, in the history of FILM.... Make that job a little easier -- I'm more interested up Nov 22nd till LIFE turned the film back over to the Zapruder family...
Everyone knows the Z-film was altered after that date, thanks to MPI!
Not to forget -- who was the LIFE film operator that was responsible for the two breaks in the alledged Zapruder camera original film....
-
So what do we have, HERE?
Simple, we have a composite COMP frame 347/357 posted last, Z-347 and Z-357 are the first two images posted here. Effectively, what took place in the limo (Z-347] has been moved ahead by 1/2+ of a second, 10 frames to [Z-357]....what took place place in the limo is moved further down Elm Street.
Z-fram Images came from Fetzer's site, see:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/?
Z347 and Z-357 have been included in the upload for reference purposes....
the object of this task is to SHOW foreground imagery (this case, BELOW Elm Street curb *plus* occupants/limo parts) the lower matte can be slid up OR down Elm Street) through the use of optical film printing, matte and or glass painting circa. 1963-64 vintage....
Using Painter IX on a Apple G5 dual 2.0Ghz computer with 2.5 gig of RAM this simple exercise took 15 minutes for processing (cutting matte lines - preparing counter matte) no tweaking was done to the layers i.e., feathered edges. Touch up matte painting would of been required in '63 -- but then that's what studio artists were for, after all, to quote someone hereabouts -- "...photography IS a art form..."... [emphasis mine]
Contrary to what newbies to film post-production, for that matter ANY type of motion media post-production understand -- matte painting and glass painting was perfected and used for FIXING a multitude of problems within the confines of film frames. Individual frames, or thousands of frames
The combined image (Comp frame 347/357 shows the result - a composite of foreground Z-347 background Z-357 -- now, nay-sayers will say: "hey, anyone can do that today, what about 1963-64?" Well of course anyone can do it today, if they know how -- so....
I'll claim right here, in black and white: it was possible in 1963 to accomplish same through optical film printing, traveling matte and glass painting exactly what has been digitally recreated here --
I invite Roland Zavada -- Raymond Fielding and/or ANYONE else in or out of the commercial film industry to **CITE**, for the record, "1963-64 optical film printing crafts people, including the matte painters and glass artists could NOT accomplish this simple feat - then explain WHY..."
Hey Mr. Colby,
EVERY movie during the 20's - 30's - 40's - 50's - 60's - 70's and most of the 80's used optical film printing techniques -- all YOU gott'a do man, is open up Fielding's 1st edition 1964-65 book. Cover to cover, it show circa '63 and earlier examples -- not to mention the index lists SMPE/SMPTE examples, quotes, studio debates, lawsuits regarding industry optical film printing secrets concerning the same.....
To recap: comp frame 347/357 image: top half (grass area above curb) comes from Z-357 -- bottom half (Elm Street curb and below) comes from Z-347 note: body and limo parts extending into the grass area comes from Z-347....
note: obviously this comp needs a bit of work, there's 4 places that need a brush -- and yes in 1963 you can feather a image lines -- just gotta read Fielding -- but hey today, it's the internet-- all the three included files were downloaded in .jpg format, saved and reworked in .pict format then re-saved in .jpeg format at 85% -- The Warren Commission isn't seated so I no longer have the intended audience --
And this brings what to the table David? Other than to show that your computer comp skills are crap?
And of course the BIG question is when are you actually going to do this ON FILM?
What you posted is meaningless and very poorly done I might add. I'm glad this was not for a paying customer.....
I expected as much from you, evidently artisty is a misconception for you -- I await Roland Zavada -- and Raymond Fielding's comments -- those that may have a modicum of knowledge regarding the film printing craft.
I'll also say with utmost of respect -- I think both these gentleman will have to consult others they know in the optical film printing craft.
I'll also hasten to remind you, in particular -- because Roland Zavada is/was Kodak's go to guy regarding 8mm film properties, doesn't mean he knew how to thread a 35 mm projector....
As for my computer skills --- done me pretty good for the last 20 years -- I doubt you even know what Painter IX, not to mention After Effects nor MOTION nor 3D Studio nor POV-Ray and YES, Lightwave GOD bless those toaster folks
truck on Photog - truck on
-
So what do we have, HERE?
Simple, we have a composite COMP frame 347/357 posted last, Z-347 and Z-357 are the first two images posted here. Effectively, what took place in the limo (Z-347] has been moved ahead by 1/2+ of a second, 10 frames to [Z-357]....what took place place in the limo is moved further down Elm Street.
Z-fram Images came from Fetzer's site, see:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/?
Z347 and Z-357 have been included in the upload for reference purposes....
the object of this task is to SHOW foreground imagery (this case, BELOW Elm Street curb *plus* occupants/limo parts) the lower matte can be slid up OR down Elm Street) through the use of optical film printing, matte and or glass painting circa. 1963-64 vintage....
Using Painter IX on a Apple G5 dual 2.0Ghz computer with 2.5 gig of RAM this simple exercise took 15 minutes for processing (cutting matte lines - preparing counter matte) no tweaking was done to the layers i.e., feathered edges. Touch up matte painting would of been required in '63 -- but then that's what studio artists were for, after all, to quote someone hereabouts -- "...photography IS a art form..."... [emphasis mine]
Contrary to what newbies to film post-production, for that matter ANY type of motion media post-production understand -- matte painting and glass painting was perfected and used for FIXING a multitude of problems within the confines of film frames. Individual frames, or thousands of frames
The combined image (Comp frame 347/357 shows the result - a composite of foreground Z-347 background Z-357 -- now, nay-sayers will say: "hey, anyone can do that today, what about 1963-64?" Well of course anyone can do it today, if they know how -- so....
I'll claim right here, in black and white: it was possible in 1963 to accomplish same through optical film printing, traveling matte and glass painting exactly what has been digitally recreated here --
I invite Roland Zavada -- Raymond Fielding and/or ANYONE else in or out of the commercial film industry to **CITE**, for the record, "1963-64 optical film printing crafts people, including the matte painters and glass artists could NOT accomplish this simple feat - then explain WHY..."
Hey Mr. Colby,
EVERY movie during the 20's - 30's - 40's - 50's - 60's - 70's and most of the 80's used optical film printing techniques -- all YOU gott'a do man, is open up Fielding's 1st edition 1964-65 book. Cover to cover, it show circa '63 and earlier examples -- not to mention the index lists SMPE/SMPTE examples, quotes, studio debates, lawsuits regarding industry optical film printing secrets concerning the same.....
To recap: comp frame 347/357 image: top half (grass area above curb) comes from Z-357 -- bottom half (Elm Street curb and below) comes from Z-347 note: body and limo parts extending into the grass area comes from Z-347....
note: obviously this comp needs a bit of work, there's 4 places that need a brush -- and yes in 1963 you can feather a image lines -- just gotta read Fielding -- but hey today, it's the internet-- all the three included files were downloaded in .jpg format, saved and reworked in .pict format then re-saved in .jpeg format at 85% -- The Warren Commission isn't seated so I no longer have the intended audience --
-
Pat wrote:
[...]You don't need to agree with me, but to insist that my research, which I believe sets back severely the lone-nutter arguments that there is "not one scintilla of evidence blah blah blah" is irresponsible, is, I believe, incredibly short-sighted.
Your research is fine, Pat. To take it a step further -- If one eliminated first person eye witness testimony (read: near term - long term memory) in this case - what would the case againist LHO be? Not much! What's left? Why the films, right? When one camp in particular questions THOSE films, you think the wailing is high now, it would reach reach epic proportions if that were the case?
Look on the bright side of things, WITH eye witness testimony, things like this forum [amongst others] seem to thrive, not to mention, local DA's offices, they keep plugging away...
For many understanding what the Warren Comission members saw, read, comprehended -- what their assigns were tasked with; saw, read, spoke, asked and comprehended is more than sufficient to lead one to the conspiracy side of the equation...
-
Pat wrote:
[...]
There is a Doug Horne memo that tracks the camera turned over by the military and the shenanigans engaged by the HSCA to hide this camera (that is, Blakey). Baden confirmed to Horne that he was never told about the "problems" with the camera. Horne was also unable to find the HSCA tests that showed the camera couldn't have taken the autopsy photos. So he was never able to explain what was "wrong" with the camera. I explain in detail what I think happened and why in "Forehead Analysis".Doug answered questions [on this forum] many months back -- maybe he'd do so again? If no one can find him Pat -- there is someone you know of [possibly know because of your vicinity], and someone I know, who can!
Of course Doug Horne has a bit more knowledge of the Z-film and the Zavada report than anyone here or at the 6th floor museum
-
J. R. Carroll wrote:
I wonder why the FBI would be so concerned about the business practice of a county coroner in Pennsylvania. Even if Wecht were guilty on any of the counts, it's not like he was killing anybody. The people were already dead when they got to his office.The UK abolished Grand Juries a long time ago. Grand juries are a throwback to a less enlightened era. As Caroline Kennedy notes in her book on the Bill of Rights, it is a truism that any DA worth his salt could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
I personally have no particular fondness for Cyril Wecht, but I tthink the idea of hitting him with a 60-odd count indictment is no way to treat a ham sandwich. If they had ONE charge against him I would be more impressed, but a 60-odd count indictment screams out the bankruptcy of the prosecution case. As Ron points out, the people were already dead when they got to Wecht's office. Are they alleging that he made personal phone calls from the office?
Students of the JFK assassination are sometimes considered paranoid. The case of Dr. Wecht is evidence that even paranoids have enemies.
2 year investigation 60-odd count indictment... makes one wonder if Monica Lewenski is busy again. What this means is; Cyril is through making talking points and countering same on CNN/FOX/MSNBC --
Bet prices for his Pittsburg high brow JFK seminar in 2004 [or was it 2005] just went in the toilet
Yes, Virginia there IS a price for fame
-
Thank You !
David
Question Evan--
I'm not much of a fan regarding NASA moon landing 'issues', nor photos/alledged photos of same. Over the years I've completed many photo/film/video assignments for the agency, NASA - Mountain View, Ca.
Has NASA 'officially' commented on any of these photo "issue - descrepencies"? If not, why NOT?
I'd like to know if there is anything on the record from NASA
Is it NASA policy to have unofficial spokespersons commenting for the Space Agency -- Of course you'll have my apology if you're a official spokesperson for NASA...
David Healy
Hi David.
First off, I have no connection with NASA in any way, shape, or form - except my respect and admiration for its achievements. As such, NASA has absolutely no control over what I say - therefore I am NOT an 'unofficial spokesman' for them, and if they have any policy for such I'm unaware of it and it would not affect me.
The images and text from sites like the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal are all public domain, and as such are the best source available to me.
Now, has NASA commented on these 'discrepencies'? Not directly, as far as I know, but they do indeed mention claims that the programme was somehow faked:
The Great Moon Hoax - Moon rocks and common sense prove Apollo astronauts really did go to the Moon
Lessons of the 'Moon Hoax' myth
Why doesn't NASA officially respond to these claims? Well, at one stage they were going to. NASA hired science writer Jim Oberg to compile a book showing exactly why all the 'moon hoax' claims were wrong. When this was announced, a flood of complaints were received saying that the book project was a waste of money. The backlash from the general public and elected officials was so great that NASA was forced to cancel the book.
Should NASA respond to these claims? In my opinion - YES. I am not, however, a US citizen or taxpayer and so I have no say in the matter. My own opinion is that people should write to their elected officials and demand that NASA be allowed to refute these claims.
I've written to some of the programme's participants, and asked why they are not more vocal about these claims. In general, they say it is simply not worth it. Responses are misquoted or taken out of context, or simply not shown when it does not support a pro-'Apollo Hoax' stance (Bart Sibrel is a major proponent of this approach). Some have commented that people who are genuinely unsure tend to read the arguements, look up the science, conduct the possible experiments, and come to the conclusion that it did indeed happen as claimed. The die-hard 'hoax believers' will not change their stance, and no evidence will alter their beliefs - so why waste time trying?
Jack White himself has said as much. When I asked what evidence WOULD convince him that the programme was not faked, he said (here on this forum) words to the effect of: He would examine any evidence in support of the landings but since the landings were faked, any evidence in support of the landings must also be faked so there can be no evidence to support the landings.
-
Somewhere around MAR / APR 2005, Jack White published an investigation of some Apollo programme images on Aulis.com which he claimed proved that NASA had faked images of the Apollo moon landings.
Starting APR 2005, I posted a large thread of rebuttals to Jack's claims explaining where and why in each claim he was incorrect.
The Education Forum suffered some server problems in late 2005, and the entire thread disappeared. Let this be a lesson to you - if it is important, BACK IT UP. The Education Forum, like many other sites, can suffer disasterous problems which can lead to the permanent loss of data, a consequence over which they have no (or little) control.
Foretunately, many people had read the thread and saved it's pages - my grateful thanks to those people (you know who you all are!). I saved many of the images that I used - though not all.
Thanks to the people who were able to retrieve the data, I am once again posting the rebuttals to Jack's Aulis investigation.
THIS WILL NOT BE AN EXACT REPRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL WORK
Since my rebuttals, Jack has been asked by Aulis to withdraw or correct some of his original claims. He has also added some additional material to his investigation. My posts will generally start with the heading that Jack has chosen for each individual claim (i.e. LRVs Lowered Into Position), and each of my posts will rebut that claim. Please also note that since Jack's investigation is copyrighted, I cannot post the original claims here (unless, of course, Jack White - who is a member here - would grant me permission to post those claims). As such, correction or alteration to Jack's Aulis investigations on the Aulis website may take place. If such an occurance happens, my posts may appear to refer to absent or altered work.
Additionally, there were errors in my original rebuttals to Jack's claims, which were corrected at the time but will now appear incorporated into my new rebuttals.
Please be patient as this will be a "work in progress" as I revisit Jack's investigation, using old data when appropriate and researching new data if required.
Please enjoy and remember - don't take my word for what I say here. Look at Jack's work on Aulis, look at my rebuttals, look at the links provided, look at the original images, study the science behind the programme, and wherever possible - recreate the images yourself when something is claimed to be "impossible" to see whether I am correct or Jack is correct.
Edited to add:
P.S. Excuse my spelling errors.... I'll correct them whenever I notice them.
Question Evan--
I'm not much of a fan regarding NASA moon landing 'issues', nor photos/alledged photos of same. Over the years I've completed many photo/film/video assignments for the agency, NASA - Mountain View, Ca.
Has NASA 'officially' commented on any of these photo "issue - descrepencies"? If not, why NOT?
I'd like to know if there is anything on the record from NASA
Is it NASA policy to have unofficial spokespersons commenting for the Space Agency -- Of course you'll have my apology if you're a official spokesperson for NASA...
David Healy
-
quote]
[...]
Zavada visited Professor Fielding in 2003 to ensure his conclusions about the improbability of alteration were correct. Professor Fielding agreed with Zavada; "that it was not possible to alter the Zapruder film incorporating the scene changes attributed to that process and if attempted, the results would be easily detectable".
[...]
You'll no doubt provide us with formal documentation of same, yes? I doubt it!
ding-dong
-
I have recently been in contact with Rollie Zavada*. Healy insinuated that he no longer stands by his determination after detailed study that the Z-film in the National Archives was and in camera original and showed no signs of "optical effect or matte work". That is utter nonsense – he still believes that and is convinced that the film could not have been altered as alleged.
Unable to name a single movie from the period of the assassination which used compositing as intricate as was alleged to have been used in the "altered" Z-film Healy instead cites a Special Effects text book by Ray Fielding. Zavada visited Professor Fielding in 2003 to ensure his conclusions about the improbability of alteration were correct. Professor Fielding agreed with Zavada; "that it was not possible to alter the Zapruder film incorporating the scene changes attributed to that process and if attempted, the results would be easily detectable".
So I think that pretty much settles it, we can all go home now. ROTFLMHO
Ding Dong! The Theory is dead. Which old Theory? The Z-film alteration Theory!
Ding Dong! The Z-film alteration Theory is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Z-film alteration Theory is dead. It's gone where the nonsense goes,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Z-film alteration Theory is dead!
Other songs on today's playlist:
Another One Bites The Dust -Queen
Down In Flames - The Dead Boys
Laugh - The Monkees
*Who worked for Kodak for many years as a product engineer and led the team that invented the Kodachrome II film that Zapruder used. See the following link for his bio.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zavada/zbio.pdf
biography? rofl ---Dave - Rule #1 of this forum is "All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature". Where's yours? I remember you hastling me before I added my photo. You are one of the very few members of the forum not in compliance.
Len
buy the book and read it!
Not really that interested Dave but I do find your double standard amusing and typical. Don't your remember how much your harped on about my lack of a photo, even implying I might get booted from the forum?
I'm going away again probably won't post for another week - not that there's much to discus any way until the alterationist can provide evidence that the Z-film could have been altered.
_________________________
yeah right -- roflmfao I'll be making my formal claim, soon -- we'll see what kind of offense you can mount -- not that I suspect you can mount anything -- oh, your gonna need Roland Zavada -- I'll venture say you lone neuters MAY find a optical film printing expert within 30 day's, right.... ?
ding-dong!
-
Where does it say in the forum rules that David Healy is excused of following forum rules? Is there a "loud mouth" exclusion somewhere?
I second Bill's question.
T.C.
Does Bill miller/larry Peters think this is LANCER? And Tom just sit tight, unless of course your another mouth piece for Miller --
-
Bill,
An excellent overlay -- thank you.
Thanks. I am waiting for Jack to now say that the second woman to the left of the road sign was merely practicing her clapping for when the motorcade came by 20 minutes later.
Bill
they'll be plenty to laugh about, soon! Stay tuned...
and NO -- you can forget about the north side of Elm Street -- the south side is another story of course....
tis all for now!
-
Dave - Rule #1 of this forum is "All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature". Where's yours? I remember you hastling me before I added my photo. You are one of the very few members of the forum not in compliance.
Len
biography? rofl ---
buy the book and read it!
-
Len Colby wrote:
[...]
Zapruder claimed to have been a great admirer of JFK, is there any evidence to the contrary or in support of this?[...]
So was Oswald, a admirer that is! Personally, I'd like to see evidence to support Zapruder's admiration for JFK... other than hearsay
-
I get sick feeling when I see people like yoyrself flaming others for showing a little common sense as if it takes some vast knowledge of the Kennedy case to do so. It's a black eye on this forum and a black eye on yourself in my view. The points made above are things we all were taught in high school, so why does one need to be a seasoned researcher to understand these simpple principals? Now prove me wrong and address the issues or prove me right and just continue on as nothing more than a mouth piece.
Larry
____
Oh come on Bill -- where'd you go to high school again.....?
So, 6 continuous frames out of a 18.3 fps film -- let's see, do the math -- ah, that's just under 1/3rd of a second right? Show it to the lurkers in REALtime, what the real debate is -- wouldn't want others to think you're up to something, now would we - Most of us don't need slo-mo, what's that about (our viewing pleasure? LOL) there's no suggestion the Warren Commission viewed the film in slo-mo either.
Oh -- and have these frames been de-interlaced? You do know if these frames came from a video? There's two fields to a single frame, btw....
Still ill? Need a bowl?
Bernice let the clowns go -- they're not worth your time... Lancer forum as a photo venue is on the wayout - these dudes are looking for green pastures -- bumbling efforts at forum ettiquette displayed here announces their arrival....
-
Listen guys. You're taking this way beyond the scope of the Forum. Forget about it.
Don't worry about it, Mark -- This is professional, not personal -- And yes, it's way beyond the forum. Some have asked; what Dealey Plaza historical record do we want preserved? For many that answer is; leave no stone unturned -- there's boulders all over the place.... and we haven't turned one over yet -- look at the response just by posing the question....
-
David, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I have no qualifications, none whatsoever. Therefore I cannot evaluate the theory that Costella is presenting to the scientific community, of which I am not one. I have never claimed to be one nor to have any qualifications as should be clear from my numerous attempts at learning/contributing etc to this to a largre part non scientific community here. Jim on the other hand is on another level.
However, I do understand that scientists that present theories for evaluation to the scientific community according to an established method. This seems to me the only way to follow this side of the debate. I'm just asking to be provided whith the necessary references to use in searching abstracts.
let me ask you something -- IF this were a scientific court of inquiry, reviewing a case of film validation and authentication - one side submitted JCostella's brief as a case for alteration and the other side submitted NOTHING other than their classic quote; "the Zapruder film is not altered. there wasn't time, the Dealey Plaza films are seamless".
Progressing towards the truth -- What about; the TRUTH period?
What's the outcome?
The outcome would be of no value.
JCostellas paper would have to be disected and evaluated and some statement made. That's one thing. The quote would similarly have to be evaluated and some statement made. That's another thing. Probably there would be relevant overlaps. But if I understand your question then it doesn't seem to me the way to proceed.
The important thing though would be to have an involvement by scientists wherever a point is made that clearly in such a court situation can only be answered by those with established credientials.
However, this is hypothetical, it is not such a forum.
As Jim has pointed out there are scientists reading the forum, on for example the xray issues and they have seen no reason to contribute. I think it's a good thing to know this as if and when they do so we can feel more secure in our theorising, conversely their non involvement is good in that we can feel secure that we could very well be wrong. That in itself is direction.
One thing that is important in any forum, scientific and otherwise is to have a dialogue. I have preference that that dialogue should be with an aim of progressing towards truth. For this to happen I think a dispassionate, rational dialogue environment is best. Perhaps that could be seen at least as an attempt at such a 'court of enquiry' you are proposing.
The alteration camp has such a scientist, with the credentials -- whose made a case, and PUBLISHED same. BTW, I suspect he's not theorizing -- let the other side find a scientist or group of scientists (with credentials) have them evaluate his case. By ALL means!
Progressing towards the truth? What about the TRUTH period?
Why are THEY dragging their feet? F E A R?
Hi Gary!
Zapruder alteration - possible?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David G. Healy
Yes we have, Tom.... not only limo acceleration, but shot location, in particular the 2nd shot and most important the local of the 3rd shot -- thanks for tthe imput, jump in anytime!
David
**********************************************
Ed O'Hagan wrote:
If one accepts the Warren Commision Report, then surely it follows that to conclude the Zapruder film was altered would be completely nonsensical. In other words an LNer is being absolutely consistent when he/she supports the non-alterationist perspective. However, when a CTer, who rejects the Report as being nothing but a cover-up, but agrees with a non-alterationist LNer that the footage is unquestionably the genuine article, is he /she not then obliged to choose between one or other of the following statements?....
The Zapruder footage is unaltered , and from what I see being depicted I am able to deduce and conclude that JFK was targetted by more than one assassin. The Warren Commission Report would be unacceptable to me even on those grounds alone.
or
Based on my interpretation of the entire evidence, I completely reject the Warren Commission Report. In regard to the Zapruder film, however, nobody has shown me anything to convince me that the footage has been altered in any way, shape or form. So while I agree with the LNers' position in regard to non-alteration, I cannot accept their conclusion that non-alteration of the Zapruder footage validates the claims of the Commission.
Is it not reasonable to assume, that if one is convinced that the Warren Commission engaged in covering -up a conspiracy, then everything that followed thereafter, would ever have seen the light of day if they had thought it would have contradicted their conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald was the LN assassin of JFK?
This case is not closed. We are not even close to understanding it, never mind solving it. Spitting in the eye of a fellow detective who is working on a cold case file , is hardly the recommened approach to encouraging team-work and earning the respect of colleagues... Surely not?
For those who see little point in trying to convince the unwilling, and also, hopefully, to put an end to this seemingly interminable exercise in futility, here are a couple of pictures, one of which has been deliberately altered. Which one?... is the question? Is it the one depicting the two leaping dolphins, or is the one showing the quarter horse snapped at Los Alamitos racetrack ?
____________________________
Nice to see you posting Ed ---- I'll take the short saddle, Ed -- I see a little noise around the edges of the cow... the question of the hour is: Do cow's swim?
Take care my friend....
David