David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Larry, thank you for taking the time to post that. I'll read it a few times. I'm a bit hesitant to comment while the temp remains high.
______________________________
I just want to go into a bit on my mindset first so we know where we are.
My 'natural' inclination is to trust my eyes and reason. I know from experience that that is sometimes not a good thing. With regards to zfilm alterations I have an attachment to the idea that it is not altered.
(I realise here a clear definition of what I mean by altered is necessary: I don't mean missing or mixed up frames or different frame rates or even necessarily format or enhancements as far as color goes unless say a green becomes a red etc. In other words an enhancement that isolates or defines a region need not necessarily be regarded as an alteration as long as it serves some purpose and is presented as such. Which ties in to what a lot of this is to me: amatter of presentation. If a particular film version has frames missing or put in wrong order it is just a matter of presentation and can easily be dealt with. If values are changed by removing blemishes or scratches, or if the frames are distortion corrected, then that is an alteration which creates a baseline that cannot be in some issues dealt with. It can't be used to prove or disprove some things. Now, the creation of an alternative version and presenting that as the original is something else entirely. It's NOT an alteration, it's a new film used in a deceptive way. And there no good is expected in using it to analyse events EXCEPT in order to look at conspiracy.)
So like I said I am attached to the idea that the zfilm as we know it is not a 'new film', and apart from some versions such as for example those distortion corrected by Costella, are not altered, however this is not deception as it is acknowledged that it is altered and can in some instances be useful.
I don't care if frames are missing or jumbled up, it just makes things more difficult while at the same time exposing deceptions, so a win win in the end.
Now I understand that the basic argument is that the zfilm as we know it is not the zfilm, rather a 'new film', and that the reasons for saying so are the result of scientists analyzing the film. Further it is argued that only scientists can credibly discuss the theories put forward. All I can say there at the moment is that it is not an argument for alteration but rather substitution of one film with another that has been created for the purpose of replacing the original with a false one in order to show or not show something. If it's to show that there is a lone nut its obviously a flawed recreation. If it's to show something else like to hide something then a lot can be crossreferenced to other films and photos.
Well, I'm not a scientist. But I know that scientists write papers that are made available to other scientists through independent respectable scientific publications, other scientists then take those results and attempt test them and then publish their results and so on.
Therefore the only way I can say anything about this hypothesis is to read those papers, and I'm asking for a listing under subject heading, abstract listings, scientist etc etc before going further. These must necessarily also be from outside the group that supports this theory as any hint of promotional ventures or lobbying etc don't wash on that level. Background papers that establish the credibility of the scientists that contribute to this theory discussion of would be nice, but a list of contributors and their field can be enough, it just makes a search more difficult, so if this is available then a good first step is to publish that list here.
Thank you.
Nice dance, John! Might you post your bonifides declaring your scientic expertise in photo/film interpretation? So there's no misunderstanding, if your a weekend warrior at this "photo" stuff I'd like to know that going in.
"Well I'm no scientist..." your quote, not mine -- Is this the best the Lone Neuter's can do, I've asked for a Physicist from their side for 2-3 years - review JCostella's work. Nothing! ZIP, NADA, ZILTCH --
You might try contacting JCostella, if he tells you to buzz off, well, what then....? Or has he already told you that? If you know what scientists write -- send Costella's chapter to one, one that has a few credentials in optics, get his comments, bonifides AND permission to quote then go on the record with them -- John Costella's theory is on the record for the whole world to see -- spring for it -- buy the book, I understand it might be in a few library's downunder....
Oh, a background paper that establishes YOUR credibility might be in order here, also. What say you?
-
You have doing the backstroke down pat David....
when you know your gig -- you don't have to flail around....
-
game, set, match --
your previous arguments were film alteration was impossible - NOW it's the art? I do want to see your film - post production resume with credits. A URL to a few of your film composites will do nicely, too!
Right here, thanks...
-
Don't get so testy champ -- okay you don't have top post your resume -- even if you volunteered too -- You got something to hide?
Funny about a animation stand - I believe I speak of one -- Of course there's many more way's than just a animation stand -- but you know that, right?
A nd what are you going to compare these color variations too, if the original camera original doesn't exist? Hell I don't even have to go into blowing up to 35mm.... tsk-tsk
Craig wrote:
Of course I'll be happy to post my resume here David, right after you post that composite film clip you have created USING FILM and an optical printer. After you David. You like to throw around the term optical printer like it actually means something and it makes you feel ilke you actual know what you are talking about.
dgh: mines in the front of my GZFH chapter.... well in relationship to 1963-64 its your, what's that guys name again? Damocles- damolcles sword - you know the one hanging over every lone neuter's head
Irrelevent David. I could care LESS about your resume. Learn to read and stay on topic.
Truth is an optical print is just a piece of kit, and its not the only way to produce composites, nor is it the method that would make the most sense in the theory you posit.
dgh: maybe you'll be so kind to explain why the US governemnt commissioned the 1st serious one in this country during the early stages of WW2 -- would you like the URL? Watch the dance lurkers -- Tell me Craigster all about the truth re Optical Film Printing - technology
An animation stand would be a far better piece of kit to do the alterations your side suggests. An optical printer was developed FOR ONE REASON...to make reasonable composites IN A TIMELY AND COST EFFECTIVE MANNER. In other words to do the job good enouth and CHEAP!
In fact it makes the LEAST sense given the original film stock AND the level of changes your side suggests. You David are a blowhard who like to throw around terms that you think make it seem you know what you are talking about. Its pretty clear you don't...hell you don't even understand WHY the argument you try and defend is so wrong.
dgh: well by all means -- please give it your best shot -- fill the lurkers in, what the secret? If its the ridiculous theory regarding contrast levels -- you really need a life. But first maybe you can tell us what the contrast level of the optical fi;lm prints are in relationship to the alledged Zapruder camera original -- we can start there...
I can see you have had no real experience duping Kodachrome to other film stocks. Even to Kodachrome dupe stock its a bad experience. Dupe to interneg stock or reversal stock and you have color crossovers that you can't fix. THAT David is a FACT OF LIFE you cannot get past. But please try, lay out the stock chain and then show us actual examples of the results. Should be no problem for you, being an EXPERT and all. But you miss my point. All of this crap you guys base on Costellas "science" is flawed by the very simple fact that even Costella has admitted on this very forum that the can't normalize the Z frames to do his sign study...and yet he still says he can...Sheesh. He is a world class huckster...
But back on point, my experience includes making MANY film based composites,
dgh: now that lurkers is peanut gallery NOISE -- the lone neuters hereabouts have NEVER pointed to anything resembling a film motion composite using travelling mattes. We've asked, many times, no examples, no experts -- just Craig and of course we know what he's doing here -- I doubt Craig knows the term travelling matte...
EARTH TO DAVID! a motion picture composite is a still frame composite, and thats not going to change no matter how many "motion picture terms" you throw around to they and make yourself feel like and "expert" A composite is a composite is a composite. Movie composites move past the viewer with motion and sound masking all tiny mistakes. A still sits there and allows the viewer to study it in depth, or even with magnification. So please give us a few of those wonderful movie composite frames, made on an optical printer...BY YOU..so we can study them in depth. What ya afraid of David?
and like it or not David, doing this stuff for stills AND print is far more exacting than the stuff in a movie. Of course thats exactly WHY you have yet to post any examples of your film compositing work ( Its my guess its really because you have NOT produced any) and why you have not brought forth any examples of film compositing using ANY method that can stand up to detailed examination.
dgh: well why yes, that's why most entertainment industry optical printers circa 1963-64 had tolerance levels within 0.001 of an inch [includes aerial optical blocks], you realize that don't you? So as I sit here watching a 25 layer composite (one of 230 :23 second HD animations) renderin
g, please, tell me all about it .... oh, final digital product goes to 35mm. Back to the peanut gallery
The accuracy of the printer really means nothing. Its a smoke screen. Its the art that matters. We started down this path many months ago and you ran away and hid. I understand why you hid, because this is where you lose. Its the art David...and thats where the accuracy matters. You gonna tell me that the artists can paint masks to .001 accuracy? LOL! Who cares what the printer can do DAVID...ITS THE ART!
There was a reason we still photographers found every trick we could to NOT do composites David....thats because composites SUCK when you look at them up close and personal.
well hell, why didn't you say that a few years back -- NOW I know your problem -- you've got to deal with reality, read: bow to the client -- on my end -- I create new reality thats why they call it showbiz. With that understanding, no wonder you haven't a clue as to what motion film compositing is, or its history...
Actually we extend reality ... up close and personal...not to some lousy resolution like you video flakes. We actually have to understand light and shadow...and we have to make images that stand all on their own. You video pukes could use some real lessons from REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS. Of course when you are shooting cowboys how much skill does it really take anyway?
BTW I stop by here for entertainment....period.
dgh: we've noticed
And you think you are doing this to solve the case? LOL!
That and I love seeing guys like you make an _ss of yourselfs.
dgh: how silly
Yes you and your horde are silly.
-
Larry er, yeah.... wrote:
Mr. Fetzer, can you provide this forum with any names of photographic experts who have peer reviewed Costells'a work and agreed with it? It seems to me that I read once that his formula for how he reached is conclusions was solicited so it could be validated, but he had declined to share it.
__________________
Mr. Peter's it is incumbent on YOU to find a photo expert and/or Physicists that will dispute Dr. Costella,s work. As of this date in time, you've had well over two going on 3 year's to produce ONE --In all your efforts you can't produce one that'll go on the record ----
Noise Mr. Peter's.....
Get to work champ!
I had heard you were arrogant but hadn't noticed myself until now.
Be careful, Mr. Fetzer. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Whether one is a Christian or not, there is truth in that message.
Larry
roflmfao!
that 9mm getting to heavy?
-
When the other non alteration side of the argument re the camera original Zapruder Film chain of posession/custody time line is understood, I'll be open to meaningful discussion --
Larry peters [sic] wrote:
David, You are on record on this very Forum stating that you have not seen any proof that the Zapruder film has been altered. Your position was only that the ability to alter the film was present at the time of the assassination. So if you are going to start talking about "hot air" when mentioning non-alterationist, just remember that you in a sense have said the same things they have.
Larry
_________________
Absolutely correct! Why haven't I seen evidence of alteration? Simple, I haven't held the Zapruder camera original film in my hand (actually, I don't beleive the *ORIGINAL* Zapruder camera original is in existence today - not much of the original 3 optical prints remain in existence, either. GMack has one at the 6th floor -- the other two, a shame), nor to the best of my knowledge has forensic testing been performed on the alledged camera original film currently stored at the National Archives.
We also know how to do simple testing -- Moe Weitzman in his HSCA testimony told everyone how to test AND determine if, in fact, the original, is THE original ---- Despite current Lone Neuter efforts, questions concerning the Z-film are not new...
-
Mr. Colby,
What, I say WHAT version (split or unsplit) of the Zapruder film did Dan Rather/Mr. Stolley of LIFE magazine see see -- can't quite find your answer amongst the clutter above.... You've had well over a week now to detmine the answer -- we can go on from there......
Mr. Peter's er, Bill Miller or vice-versa is present -- give 'em a call
-
Well, as I live and breathe -- Bill Miller, er Larry Peters is back -- just can't stay away, eh?
-
Pat wrote:
[...]
I support Len's efforts to get White and Healy to present an alteration scenario that is consistent and makes sense. From what I've read this is yet to have been done. Not sure if I'll agree with it or not once (and if) it is presented.
[...]
__________________
Pat
Have either Len or yourself post what they KNOW (not think, KNOW) about the *camera original Zapruder film lineage and chain of posession/custody time line* then we'll discuss the matter -- some knowledge regarding optical film printing and travelling mattes is necessary -- my understanding [based on film, analog and digital compositing experience] stands. That understanding/scenario is in GZFH, till someone refutes that optical film printing scenario (either scientific or supported by other film industry professionals) thats where it will stand...
All the hot air around here regarding (non-alteration) the Zapruder film is just that, HOT air -- get other pros here or read the 1964 standard for the art craft -- what's a matter with you guys, lazy? If you don't understand how it works, ask...
When the other non alteration side of the argument re the camera original Zapruder Film chain of posession/custody time line is understood, I'll be open to meaningful discussion --
Last question here, Pat -- your friend, the one in the biz? Is he/she open to discussing SMPE/SMPTE documents related to Optical Film Printing and the Zapruder film in particular?
-
Craig wrote:
Of course I'll be happy to post my resume here David, right after you post that composite film clip you have created USING FILM and an optical printer. After you David. You like to throw around the term optical printer like it actually means something and it makes you feel ilke you actual know what you are talking about.
dgh: mines in the front of my GZFH chapter.... well in relationship to 1963-64 its your, what's that guys name again? Damocles- damolcles sword - you know the one hanging over every lone neuter's head
Truth is an optical print is just a piece of kit, and its not the only way to produce composites, nor is it the method that would make the most sense in the theory you posit.
dgh: maybe you'll be so kind to explain why the US governemnt commissioned the 1st serious one in this country during the early stages of WW2 -- would you like the URL? Watch the dance lurkers -- Tell me Craigster all about the truth re Optical Film Printing - technology
In fact it makes the LEAST sense given the original film stock AND the level of changes your side suggests. You David are a blowhard who like to throw around terms that you think make it seem you know what you are talking about. Its pretty clear you don't...hell you don't even understand WHY the argument you try and defend is so wrong.
dgh: well by all means -- please give it your best shot -- fill the lurkers in, what the secret? If its the ridiculous theory regarding contrast levels -- you really need a life. But first maybe you can tell us what the contrast level of the optical fi;lm prints are in relationship to the alledged Zapruder camera original -- we can start there...
But back on point, my experience includes making MANY film based composites,
dgh: now that lurkers is peanut gallery NOISE -- the lone neuters hereabouts have NEVER pointed to anything resembling a film motion composite using travelling mattes. We've asked, many times, no examples, no experts -- just Craig and of course we know what he's doing here -- I doubt Craig knows the term travelling matte...
and like it or not David, doing this stuff for stills AND print is far more exacting than the stuff in a movie. Of course thats exactly WHY you have yet to post any examples of your film compositing work ( Its my guess its really because you have NOT produced any) and why you have not brought forth any examples of film compositing using ANY method that can stand up to detailed examination.
dgh: well why yes, that's why most entertainment industry optical printers circa 1963-64 had tolerance levels within 0.001 of an inch [includes aerial optical blocks], you realize that don't you? So as I sit here watching a 25 layer composite (one of 230 :23 second HD animations) rendering, please, tell me all about it .... oh, final digital product goes to 35mm. Back to the peanut gallery
There was a reason we still photographers found every trick we could to NOT do composites David....thats because composites SUCK when you look at them up close and personal.
well hell, why didn't you say that a few years back -- NOW I know your problem -- you've got to deal with reality, read: bow to the client -- on my end -- I create new reality thats why they call it showbiz. With that understanding, no wonder you haven't a clue as to what motion film compositing is, or its history...
BTW I stop by here for entertainment....period.
dgh: we've noticed
That and I love seeing guys like you make an _ss of yourselfs.
dgh: how silly
-
John Dolva wrote:
[...]
It strikes me though that the rifle is not regarded by the person holding it as 'evidence' (see where it's gripped). I'm not familiar with weapons, probaly Mark and others could make an educated guess as to what it is, it looks like a shotgun to me?
_____________
I've seen other DP photos (can't recall where and what photos) that include uniform Dallas cops carrying shotguns
-
Craig wrote:
Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight.
Love it when you non-creative types resort to Lone Neuter comedy...I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David.
It's okay Craig, only hurts for a little while - we know you're one of those great perservers of Dealey Plaza 'Lone Neuter' photo history.... -- now thats over, maybe you can tell us what version of the Z-film D.Rather saw that day so long ago. Split or unsplit film? Was it the alledged Zapruder camera original or one of the three optical prints?Back-on-point, still photog - back on point
So lurkers stay tuned!
...
Whats to hurt David? I have the background and experience, unlike you so if theres pain involved its from your end. As for the rest of your post, back on point, what point? I could care less if the "history of the Dealy Plaza photo record is preserved" Truth is truth, simple as that. Now if you and the rest of your tin foil buddies have some truth post it. So far you and yours have been shown to be miserable failures. Now thats gotta hurt AND leave a mark.
"background and experience..." ROFL -- maybe you'll be so kind as posting your resume here, huh? So what praytell, does photographing mobile homes, washers and dryers have to do with optical film printing -- possible Zapruder film alteration? Come to think of it, your team ever find someone with credentials, ANY credentials to refute the SMPE/SMPTE articles of Ray Feildings book? You find anyone, anywhere of that stature bring 'em in here Craigster -- then we'll discuss the Zapruder film
why would you assume anything new regarding the Z-film studies would be run past the Lone Neuter's, you included?
"Truth is truth..." LOL, save it for the uninitiated, Craigster, that one goes way back to comp-u-serve days - you or your supposed knowledge impresses no ONE that I know, facts being what they are, you're not even on the radar screen
As for Rather and his viewing of the Z film...I really dont care.
of course you don't, thats why you can't stay away from here, or is this a paying job?
Chow
-
Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight.
Love it when you non-creative types resort to Lone Neuter comedy...
I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David.
It's okay Craig, only hurts for a little while - we know you're one of those great perservers of Dealey Plaza 'Lone Neuter' photo history.... -- now thats over, maybe you can tell us what version of the Z-film D.Rather saw that day so long ago. Split or unsplit film? Was it the alledged Zapruder camera original or one of the three optical prints?
Back-on-point, still photog - back on point
So lurkers stay tuned!
...
-
Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight.
Love it when you non-creative types resort to Lone Neuter comedy...
-
My second post trumps my first post. I don't think this photo has anything to do with the backyard photos. From what my friend told me, it seems apparent that someone at UPI wanted a picture of the rifle found in the sniper's nest, but could only find this photo of the upheld rifle. They then had a graphic artist create an image of the rifle all by itself. The photo on the left was part of this process.
Do David and Craig (perhaps for the first time) agree that this is the most likely scenario?
Apparent? That's a stretch! I for one don't know, no idea the lineage of the concerned photo -- a fair scenario though that JFK assassination related photo manipulation was alive and well at the time...
If the press needed a image of a MC for whatever purposes thats simple, there was plenty of promo material regarding the MC was available - IF they wanted a clear photo of the alledged murder weapon and the concerned image was the only one available -- wallah!
Was that the only scenario your friend came too? The only use for the isolated rifle image [speculation of course] ?
-
Craig Lamson wrote:
Come on David, a ruby is only as accurate as the person cutting it. In any case the accuracy also depends on the subject being masked. Quite a bit of difference where accuracy is concerned when cutting around the hair on a head or a solid line on the barrel of a gun.
dgh01: duh, you think the junior varsity would recieve the call? And, of course hair could be an issue, If the hair is in the forground OVER the rifle -- not the case here
In any case a ruby makes at best a good ROUGH outline device. It won't hold up under close inspection.
dgh01: who might of examined/inspected this photos in say, 1965? Who knows what lineage this photo has -- who actually cares ---- rotflmfao
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas why?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John;
With your computer capabilities, I would have thought that the answer would be quite obvious.
Tom
Well, throw in a conspiratorial mindset to colour the picture, perhaps not so obvious..
Tom, I think this is one for Pat and David. What I see is (with my understanding of what they say) a 'cut out' for a rifle image where the photo here is unaltered. It's not a very precise attempt as the edges in places are blotchy so it could be a first attempt, put aside/discarded and now re-surfacing.I suppose that this cut out could then have been used to analyse the backyard photo's. nothing fishy.
_____________________
Circa 1963-64 mattes material (ruby - color of the transparant mask material) or masks were cut with a knife -- when complete, they were very, VERY accurate -- it appears they (whomever) had not begun the cutting process...
btw John, Tom Purvis is quite able discussing Dealey Plaza photos/motion film - backyard photos...
-
According to a friend who's done professional photo layout, a rubylith mask is taped onto the top of the photo. It allowed a graphic artist to isolate the gun and create an image of the gun by itself. She swears this was totally standard behavior for graphic artists in the sixties.
Well into the early 90's actually... Around that time Photoshop 2 or 3 was taking off [thats when Adobe came out with layers -- Painter2 had layers a year before Photoshop got around to them]
Yes, it was standard to 'isolate a portion of the picture [by cutting ruby - creating a hole cutter matte] in this case the rifle -- if that's what you were enhancing or correcting and wish NOT to change other parts of the photo. This artist appears to applied the ruby overlay, hasn't isolated [outlined the rifle and removed the ruby covering the entire rifle, yet ... based on the photo presented here I suspect this artist was isolationg the rifle, however if the artist was touching up the rifle and the rifle only, I'd expect to see ruby covering the entire picture, not just the area it presently covers...
Jack White can confirm the above or correct me, he's done enough of it, many, many years of experience
-
(bump)
come on Mr. Colby -- up'n at 'em, batter up, all that good stuff - you got a few questions to answer
The Nov23rd Zapruder-Stolley screening of the Z-film -- was it split or unsplit, camera original or optical print, who else witnessed Kodak/Jamieson/Zapruders office screening, NAMES, not just "members of the press", please. Same questions split/unsplit - camera original or optical print. How many times did it run? Which film did Dan Rather see, split or unsplit, camera original or optical print?
#0184 a familiar number to you?
Oh, how many different dupes/versions of the Z-film does the 6th floor Museum have these day's? There's got to be 30 out there, at least... I bet all of them are SPLIT versions!
You want to talk about Z-film time related - film altering possibilities, your gonna need some education and Z-film background if you expect to be taken seriously...
[snip]Dave - Are you now claiming the films started to be altered in Dallas before they were sent to Washington?
dgh02: I suspect nothing happened immediately after the assassination other than, frames lifted/distributed for immediate LIFE/press publication [those first images weren't numbered, btw]. I'm sure THOSE particular frames were touched up and enhanced. And yes, if those frames were touched up and enhanced that IS altering camera original Zapruder Film content. As for wholesale alteration? Didn't have to start until well into December, more than likely, earlier -- The ONLY audience that mattered was the yet to be formed Warren Commission, any others were voyeurs. Seated WC members didn't [offically] screen the film till late Feb '64. By my counting that left at least 2 months to get a massive [whatever THAT means to those that care] altering job done.
Might want to find out how long it took for MPI [creator of the latest and greatest version of the Zapruder film - for sale on VHS and DVD at local video stores] to alter the alledged camera original Zapruder film -- their documented procedure for doing alteration is right there on the DVD -- knock yourself out!
I notice you're not answering very simple questions -- if you don't know answers to the previous questions consult the Tinkster or GaryM. If they can't help you out, you've been answered in a large way. Let us know
How do get 5 hours. This part of the chronology is a bit confused but if the film arrived at Andrews at 10 EST then it would had to have left Dallas by 7:30 EST or 6:30 CST. Are you saying the prints were ready by 1:30 PM? That was before Zapruder went to Kodak? I guess math isn't your stong suit.[/font][/size]
Do have any evidence that NPIC had a Kodakchrome lab? IIRC officially there were only three Kodakchrome labs in the US - Rochester, Dallas and LA. Why on earth would they have a Kodakchrome lab, when they could use Ektachrome which was and still is much easier, faster and cheaper to process.
There are only two possibilites they made all the changes that night or they only made some initial changes, then doctored the film some more and switched all of Life's copies. Life had "the orginal" and a first generation copy and imediately made more copies. That night they would had to have made the doctored Elm St. and removed the limo stop* and made the other changes in the Life frames. They could not know which frames Life would publish nor if unauthorized copies would be made so the basic changed would have to have been in place.
dgh02: they would? how about: replace the LIFE copies!
*IIRC Dan Rather said the limo didn't stop but I'm not sure
PS - I'll be out of town for a few days so I won't beable to respond to White and Healy's replies till Friday[/size]
-
Your conspiracy IS the conspiracy is duly noted - having said that Of course it's easy to do NOW -- the question is: IF the intermediate image (overlay included) is a image from circa. 1963-64 -- somebody's got explaining to do, yes?
David,
The image on the right to the best of my knowledge was the one published regularly. If I remember correctly, I scanned my version from an old Look magazine.
BTW, I should have posted this complete version below after my initial post but was distracted by family business.
IMO, it poses more questions than answers them.
James
This could be an example of what I mean when I say 'the conspiracy IS the conspiracy'. An endless blurring of the issues till tails are chased in ever widening circles with an endless supply of (rightly so) suspicious researchers faced with new variations of Angletons orchids, one after the other.
Obviously, I'm not against this speculation at all. Once the counter arguments can no longer be credibly met, however, they are a dead end. (I guess that's one thing I like about Jack for example, he doesn't give up.)
_______________
This is a photo of a copy of a photo placed over a photo with typing below it. Tne photo over the photo with typing has been marked with the lengths of the rifle and a semitransparent image of the rifle placed over that. The markings on this appears to be on the tranasparent part or after the transparent part placed on. Then a photo of this has been taken.
Whether this is done before or after the advent of the currently simple ways of doing this on a computer or at the dates indicated by the images writing is another question. All I can say for now is that it's easy to do now, and that at the same time as downloading a copy my virus detectors (both) sprang into action and reported virus Win32/parite infection. Possibly in the html script there is an infection. James, if you haven't done so. check. It may be coincidental and because of an earlier infection on my computer that somehow was triggered by something unrelated, but just in case it needs to be mentioned. This virus is memory resident, but appears to be dealt with successfully by up to date always on virus programs.
-
James,
the image on the right, was this image used for publication, if so when? Appears a little contrasty to me.
the overlay appears/could be a matte [hole cutter] of the MC rifle!
Was the assassination rifle still referred to as a Sprinfield when this photo was taken?
David
-
Welcome Gary -- your association with Harold And Jim G., will do us well... Look forward to your contributions
David Healy
I am a clinical psychologist, but in 1963 was an undergraduate at Cornell U. I became interested in the JFK assassination in 1964 and began doing research. By 1966 was doing presentations, and then asked to do an OP/Ed series which the Mpls. Star/Tribune published in Feb. 1967 as "In Sixty Crucial Minutes." That Spring did an article for Ivory Tower Magazine. Co-authored, with Vincent Salandria & Thomas Katen, a series published in the Midlothian Mirror (Texas) entitled "Watchman Waketh But in Vain" which ran for about a year in the same time period. Worked closely also with Harold Weisberg and spent some time in N.O. with Jim Garrison. -
[snip]
Dave - Are you now claiming the films started to be altered in Dallas before they were sent to Washington?
dgh02: I suspect nothing happened immediately after the assassination other than, frames lifted/distributed for immediate LIFE/press publication [those first images weren't numbered, btw]. I'm sure THOSE particular frames were touched up and enhanced. And yes, if those frames were touched up and enhanced that IS altering camera original Zapruder Film content. As for wholesale alteration? Didn't have to start until well into December, more than likely, earlier -- The ONLY audience that mattered was the yet to be formed Warren Commission, any others were voyeurs. Seated WC members didn't [offically] screen the film till late Feb '64. By my counting that left at least 2 months to get a massive [whatever THAT means to those that care] altering job done.
Might want to find out how long it took for MPI [creator of the latest and greatest version of the Zapruder film - for sale on VHS and DVD at local video stores] to alter the alledged camera original Zapruder film -- their documented procedure for doing alteration is right there on the DVD -- knock yourself out!
I notice you're not answering very simple questions -- if you don't know answers to the previous questions consult the Tinkster or GaryM. If they can't help you out, you've been answered in a large way. Let us know
How do get 5 hours. This part of the chronology is a bit confused but if the film arrived at Andrews at 10 EST then it would had to have left Dallas by 7:30 EST or 6:30 CST. Are you saying the prints were ready by 1:30 PM? That was before Zapruder went to Kodak? I guess math isn't your stong suit.[/font][/size]
Do have any evidence that NPIC had a Kodakchrome lab? IIRC officially there were only three Kodakchrome labs in the US - Rochester, Dallas and LA. Why on earth would they have a Kodakchrome lab, when they could use Ektachrome which was and still is much easier, faster and cheaper to process.
There are only two possibilites they made all the changes that night or they only made some initial changes, then doctored the film some more and switched all of Life's copies. Life had "the orginal" and a first generation copy and imediately made more copies. That night they would had to have made the doctored Elm St. and removed the limo stop* and made the other changes in the Life frames. They could not know which frames Life would publish nor if unauthorized copies would be made so the basic changed would have to have been in place.
dgh02: they would? how about: replace the LIFE copies!
*IIRC Dan Rather said the limo didn't stop but I'm not sure
PS - I'll be out of town for a few days so I won't beable to respond to White and Healy's replies till Friday[/size]
-
I've asked some of these questions before but haven't gotten straight answers from any of the contributors to TGZFH so I rephrased them. Others are being asked for the first time.
In TGZFH it is alleged the plotters altered the movie in a very complex fashion. They pre-filmed the background on a different street and then doctored it to look like Elm St. in Dealy Plaza.
Amazingly this was done so perfectly that after overlaying Z-frames on stills of the plaza John Costella only detected two small anomalies. Everything else lined up. How was it possible to alter a film of another street in 1963 so perfectly that even +42 years later using computer technology that only two small inconsistencies can be found? This begs the question – Why not just film Elm St. on the real Elm St.?
The authors not only allege that Zapruder didn't really film the assassination but that no one: not `Mr. Z' nor Marylyn Stizman nor anyone else was on the DP pedestal. The plotters then had to alter all photos and films of the pedestal to show them there and they even faked photos of them near the pedestal after the assassination. – Since according to this theory Z & S were "in on" the plot why not have one of them film it or at least "put them on a (the) pedestal"? Wouldn't that have been a lot easier? What would they have done if someone had photos or films that clearly showed no one there?
If the images of the limo weren't filmed from the pedestal where were they filmed from? Shouldn't this have created perspective errors that Costella, who Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the (Zapruder) film" and a `specialist' in optics, and White should have been able to detect? Why film it from one location and say it was filmed from another?
What was the point of moving Moorman from the street to the grass?
Before handing over the original film and copies to the Secret
Service and Life magazine Zapruder showed the unaltered film to several people including Dan Rather and other reporters, family friends and 14 employees of the Dallas Kodak lab. Why would he do this if he were part of the plot to produce an altered film of the assassination?
I found this "timeline" for the Z- film. Are these times correct? Note that this comes from the Fetzer friendly Della Rosa site and is based on one of Fetzer's books
My question to Healy, White, Fetzer and Costalla is this how did they have time to do it? If it took 1.75 hours to develop Kodakchrome then to have the altered version ready by 3 AM they would have had to have finished the editing and copying by 1:15. So they had only 3 hours 15 minutes (10 PM - 1:15 AM) to get the film from Andrews to the NPIC, review it, make all the changes and make the altered copy. Let's not forget that they would be only able to review their work after developing the copies. If they didn't get everything right the first time the timing gets very complicated. I have done much simpler video editing using far more modern technology and the timing seems hardly realistic. Costella said they "…cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did". Let's not forget that Healy said earlier that these alterations would have taken a few weeks.
Of course Healy and White have yet to cite a single example of a movie from the period with such extensive special effects.
If it is theorized that move extensive alterations were done later how did the CIA switch all of Life's copies? How could they have been sure no secret copies were made? When I worked in a photo lab we made copies of stuff we found interesting all the time. If Life was "in on it" why did they publish an article calling for the assassination to be reinvestigated?
Also as far as I know there is no record of their being a
Kodakchrome lab at the NPIC or anywhere else near DC. Is there any evidence there was one. Even today Kodakchrome can only be developed at a handful of Kodak labs and one or two private ones.
http://www.jfkresearch.com/z_timetable.htm
Zapruder Film Timeline
22 Nov 63
12:30P CST JFK shot; Zapruder films it
o Zapruder returns to his office in Dal-Tex Bldg
o Zapruder calls Dallas FBI office
o Zapruder took his camera to WFAA-TV in the hope that they
could process the film (they couldn't)
o Zapruder was interviewed on air by Jay Watson
o Forrest V. Sorrels, head of Secret Service in Dallas
accompanied Zapruder from the interview
o Zapruder 's film was taken to Eastman Kodak lab across from
Love Field for processing
o film was developed using K-14 process
o processing took 1.75 hours
o Zapruder and Sorrells went to Jamieson Film Co. on Bryant St. in Dallas who made 3 copies (contact prints) of the original film
(Shaeffer's opinion that a Bell & Howell model J made the contact prints rather than optical prints. An optical printer omits any photographic scenery in the sprocket hole area; a contact printer does not. However, Bruce Jamieson told author Noel Twyman the copies were made with an optical printer).
4:00P CST o Copies completed.
6:00P CST o Richard Stolley of Life Magazine learned of the Z
film from part time Life reporter Patsy Swank who called him from DPD headquarters.
o Stolley began calling Zapruder 's residence in 15 minute intervals finally reaching him at 11:00P CST
9:30P EST o The original film and at least 1 copy are flown from Love Field in Dallas to Andrews AFB in Camp Springs Md, 1,307 miles away.
10:00P EST o The films are taken to the National Photographic
Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Suitland Md, 8 miles from Andrews AFB.
o CIA then had the film and re-processed it -- the original was reviewed and at least partially edited
o A modified camera having similar characteristics to Zapruder's Bell & Howell camera made a duplicate copy to replace the original.
o 3 copies were made using a standard optical printer
23 Nov 63
3:00A EST o Editing and copying completed at NPIC
3:20A EST o Films depart Andrews AFB
6:40A CST o Films arrive @ Love Field in Dallas
7:00A CST o Films arrive at Zapruder's office
8:00A CST o Stolley arrived at Zapruder 's office an hour early; buys certain rights to the Z film for Life Magazine
9:00A CST o Zapruder Film was shown at Zapruder 's office by the Secret Service to a small press corps including Dan Rather of CBS and reps from the Saturday Evening Post and the Associated Press.
10:00A CST o Stolley left Zapruder 's office with the duplicate original and 1 copy and sent them to the R R Donnelly Graphics Co Life lab in Chicago.
time to do WHAT? Extract a few frames for early LIFE publication? btw, you got 5 hours from the time the prints were completed till the film was on the way to WASHington that evening what happened during those hours? -- what film was screened the next day, original or dupe - split version or the unsplit version of the film. Stolley and Dan Rather saw what? Split or unsplit version?
Ducks in a row Mr. Colby -- ducks in a row.....
Zapruder, Four questions..
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David G. Healy
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".
What's determined?