David G. Healy

the longer I ponder the more I'm sure -- who WASN'T in Dealey Plaza, 'I' wasn't in Dealey Plaza that day, I was in Saigon... as for the rest of the cast of characters we've all come to know and love -- I'll go with those that have worked the question, the few who post here...

dgh01: Who said DP "look alikes" were, in fact, LOOK ALIKES? I've heard they were the real deal, you wishin and a hopin again? DGH 'Russell Kent' wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, Tim, but I think you were mearly pointing out that just because there appears to be certain people in certain DP photos, it ain't necessarily so. I don't think you were suggesting that they were planted. I'm afraid much of this photo interpretation leves me cold - I just don't see what some researchers claim. dgh01: then sidle up to the stove -- you don't know what your missin! Regards to all Russell

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I suspect that may prove that Buckley was not on the CIA payroll. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Down here in the "deep south", many can not afford the pastime of expensive hobbies and entertainment. Therefore, they watch TV, fish, and/or roam the woods shooting squirrels, rabbits, turkey, deer, etc. Few of the "ultra-rich" engage in such activities on a regular and full time basis for their "entertainment", however, there wealth offers them the opportunity to play other "games" of which most of us would never have the opportunity. Ms. Luce is another example that comes to mind, and in the event these persons who had more money than God were willing to fund and assist programs which the CIA felt needed to be fostered, then certainly, they were utilized.* *See WC Fields: "There is a moral obligation to take advantage of all suckers" Not only did they pay their own way and foot the entire bill, they required no salaries. Sounds like the original "Win-Win" concept to me. Hey Tom, Nice to see you back posting.... and great post -- I agree, might be the 'original' win-win concept! David Healy

'Len Colby' wrote: Mark, I haven't read Fetzer's JFK books but I did read the section of his site that summarizes the main arguments of TGZFH and followed the argument on this forum and elsewhere on the web. I have only sought to debunk points spelled in these sources. I don't believe the time, technology or know how existed back in '63 to do to the Z-film what they allege. I asked them to cite a movie with similar compositing and the best they can come up with is Mary Poppins! The compositing in that Disney classic is far less sophisticated that what is spelled out in TGZFH. Another point I wish to debunk is Costella’s spurious "lamp post mistake" argument. The good doctor simply failed to take a basic fact of nature in to account. All that you or any one else has to do to confirm this is to look at lamppost or telephone pole paying attention to the apparent angle to the curb and then change your angle of view. debunk, nonsense! change your angle of view -- well now, THAT's real specfic for you! There all manner of logical holes in their theories and when I ask about them the can’t provide any logical explainations As for attacks on character Fetzer and Healy insulted me, why should I pay them more respect than they pay me? When Healy called me an idiot etc you were silent Costella, White and Fetzer have long histories of purporting all manners of nonsense. I know Healy, White and Fetzer from arguing with them and reading there writings and don't believe them to be credible. I think they believe what they say, but I don't believe what they say.They are able to distort the truth in their own minds to suit their theories. ______________ READ the book! THEN get back to me! Btw, you haven't argued with anyone that I recall, there's absolutely no basis in considering ANY of your ramblings, scientific - so why argue...? Get the varsity in here you guy's sheesh!

'Len Colby' wrote: Dave if this is so ludicrous you should easily be able to debunk it. The principle is the same, it doesn't matter if the images were taken in DP, Brazil or Timbuktu. That the difference in position between Zapruder and the DPD photographer was big enough that the two images of the post were far apart in Costella's panorama it is certainly enough to account for the very small difference in angle. Also the difference could be explained if your school teacher friend even very slightly misaligned the photos in his composite panorama, only the top half of the post is visible in the Z frame. See if you can post a high resolution copy of the panorama here or elsewhere on the web, the copy on Fetzer's sight is of too low resolution to verify if the alignment between the various images is 100 % accurate. I just looked at the panorama again and noticed that the sign posts show a near identical difference of angle, doesn't that suggest something to you? You want to debunk me? dgh01: why, you've nothing to debunk? I do believe JCostella is on the record -- get to DP do your thing and get back to us -- I'm sure GaryM has another gopher around there that'll do the bidding, that is; if YOU can't find the time or can't get here for one reason or another.... so please, get on the record Send one of your boys to DP, have them place a portable flag pole or something similar as close as possible to where the post was and the take pixs of it from the positions Zapruder and the DPD photographer were in. Then overlay the images and see if you can get both the curb and the pole to line up! dgh01: see what you missed by not being at the 2003 Univ of Minn Z-film symposium -- it's ALL on DVD... For all of Costella's talk about this and that violating the laws of physics and being the top technical expert of the Zapruder film and having a specialization in optics, he failed to take into account a basic principle, that when you change your angle of view the apparent angle between objects can also change. dgh01: we await your sides Physicist -- I sus[pect it'll be one Loooooonnnnnnngggggg wait! How ironic that you told me to "find a REAL photo analyst" that's what Fetzer should have done! dgh01: well, what are you waiting for, hop to it! Don't try to make this a SBT v. conspiracy issue, most JFK researchers including participants of this forum reject both the SBT and TGZFH. Are you so desperate that you have to resort to 'straw man' arguments? Len PS - You're butt naked put some clothes on! dgh01: I understand its tough, stick to the subject matter -- voyering, not allowed Mr. Colby!

Get your person to Dealey Plaza Mr. Colby -- take a few photos and show us your stuff -- this nonsense of photos taken in frot of your house, in Brazil [or is it elsewhere] is to say the least, ludicrious. Or you can find a REAL photo analyst and put him/them on the job -- all the rank amateurs from your side of the fence has got to be disheartening for the Single Bullet Theory crowd

Jack, It appears the Groden photo [to this set] was taken at a different time of day? Probably a date other than Nov 22nd, xxxx, is that correct? Groden was used for scaling/size purposes alone, yes?

see: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/ The coup was Nov 1st, Diem was assassinated Nov 2nd, his body along with Nhu's was recovered in Cholon that same day, full of holes I might add -- there's a thing called the 'international dateline', too!

James H. Fetzer wrote: Jack has advised me that Martin is over here claiming that Josiah Thompson "cleaned my clock" on another forum! That is complete nonsense. The fact is it went the other way around, as anyone can verify for themselves simply by going to jfk-research@yahoogroups.com and reviewing the post archive. The easiest way is to review my last ten or twelve posts. [...] I wouldn't worry about Martin these day's - he's had a difficult time surviving the 60's

Appears Len hasn't picked up a book yet, ANY book! Have a nice New Year, Jack! David WHY DOES ANYONE SO UNINFORMED TRY TO MASQUERADE AS A JFK RESEARCHER? MY COMMENTS ARE INTERSPERSED IN ALL CAP LETTERS BELOW: Jack Do you have a list of these 59 witnesses and their statements? How close where they to the limo? How many witnesses said the limo didn't stop? Who took these witnesses' statements? YES. I HAVE A LIST. IT IS ON PAGES 119-128 OF MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, WHICH ALL "REAL" JFK RESEARCHERS HAVE READ. THIS FETZER BOOK IS AVAILABLE ON AMAZON AT A VERY MODEST PRICE. GET THE BOOK AND READ MY LIST. TO FIND THE LOCATIONS OF THE 59 WITNESSES, READ THE ENTIRE LIST. IT IS RIDICULOUS TO ASK HOW MANY SAID THE LIMO DID NOT STOP, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SUCH STATEMENTS TO COUNT, AND IF OTHER MOTORCADE WITNESSES DID NOT REPORT THE STOP, WE DO NOT KNOW WHY THEY DID NOT, DO WE? PERHAPS THEY WERE DISTRACTED BY THE SHOTS OR SOMETHING ELSE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SPECULATE ABOUT SUCH A NEGATIVE. HOWEVER, WE CAN SAY HOWEVER THAT OPPOSED TO THE 59 WHO SAW THE STOP, NOBODY...REPEAT NOBODY...SAID THERE WAS NO STOP! Your Wiegman frames are too unclear to say definitively if anyone is the pedeastal or not. THIS IS UNTRUE. ALL AREAS OF THE FRAMES EXPOSE SOME IMAGE IF AN OBJECT IS THERE, EXCEPT FOR THE SOLID BLACK AREA ABOVE THE PEDESTAL. HOWEVER INDISTINCT THE DETAIL OF THE FRAMES, LIGHT AREAS SHOULD BE LIGHT, GRAY AREAS SHOULD BE GRAY, AND DARK AREAS SHOULD BE DARK. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE PHOTOGRAPHICALLY FOR LIGHT AND GRAY AREAS TO PHOTOGRAPH BLACK WHEN THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN ELSEWHERE IN THE FRAMES. Althought the base is in sunlight the top is in shade. Zapruder and Stizman were wearing reletively dark clothing and the background was dark. SITZMAN WAS WEARING A LIGHT BEIGE DRESS, AS SEEN IN OTHER PHOTOS. IT WOULD HAVE STOOD OUT IN STARK CONTRAST TO A DARK BACKGROUND. YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS IS APALLING. YOUR IGNORANCE OF PHOTOGRAPHY IS ABYSSMAL. THERE IS NOT A BIT OF REASON TO STATE THAT THE TOP OF THE PEDESTAL IS IN SHADE. THERE IS NOTHING THERE TO CAST A SHADOW. THE TREE IN THE BACKGROUND IS TOO FAR WEST TO CAST A SHADOW TO THE EAST WHEN THE SUN IS IN THE SOUTH. IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF A SHADOW ON TOP OF THE PEDESTAL, PLEASE SHOW IT TO US, BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE HAS EVER SEEN SUCH EVIDENCE. ALL OTHER PHOTOS PURPORTING TO SHOW Z&S ATOP THE PEDESTAL DO SHOW "PEOPLE" THERE WHOSE IMAGES WERE "RECORDED DESPITE BEING IN SHADE". Also the pedestal area is is out of focus and blurred, Wiegman was filming from a moving car. YE GODS! YOU ARE TOTALLY IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. WIEGMAN WAS NOT FILMING FROM A MOVING CAR. HE JUMPED OUT OF THE CONVERTIBLE AT THE HOUSTON INTERSECTION AND RAN DOWN ELM WITH HIS CAMERA LOCKED IN OPERATING POSITION. HIS IMAGES ARE NOT "OUT OF FOCUS", SINCE THE FOCUS WAS FIXED. MOST OF THE FRAMES SUFFER FROM "MOTION BLUR" BECAUSE HE WAS RUNNING AND SWINGING THE CAMERA AS HE RAN. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THE BASIC FACTS ABOUT WIEGMAN, YOUR CREDIBILITY IS LESS THAN ZERO! Zapruder and his assistant would have been quite small in the image - note the size of the small blob onthe steps in front of the pedestal. That is obviously a person and any image of people on the pedestal would be similar in size. If that blob were in the shade it would be even darker and thus would be invisible against the dark background atop the pedestal. YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. YOUR MOUTH IS RUNNING BUT YOUR BRAIN IS NOT IN GEAR. You admit that your images of the Wiegman film are poor quality. I agree, they are of too poor quality to make the kind of analysis to trying to do. Before offering them as proof you should have tried tracking down better quality copies. FALSE. THE IMAGES ARE OF ADEQUATE FOR GROSS INTERPRETATION OF TONAL SHADES OF GRAY. SITZMAN'S DRESS WAS ABOUT 10% GRAYSCALE, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT AS BRIGHT AS THE WHITE PEDESTAL. YOU ARE IGNORANT OF EVEN THIS SIMPLE LAW OF PHYSICS. You have yet to give a ration explaination for why Zapruder and Stizman wouldn't have filmed from where they said they did. I ONLY ANALYZE PHOTOGRAPHS. I DO NOT CLAIM TO HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE MOTIVATIONS OF ZAPRUDER AND SITZMAN FOR LYING. THERE ARE MANY DISCREPANCIES IN WHAT THEY SAID, SO WHY BELIEVE ANY OF IT? ZAPRUDER SAID LIFE PAID HIM $25,000 WHEN IN FACT IT WAS TEN TIMES THAT MUCH. SINCE HE LIED ABOUT THIS, WHY WOULDN'T HE LIE ABOUT OTHER THINGS? Who then do think filmed the Z-film and where were they? THE Z-FILM IS A FABRICATION. THE CONSPIRATORS HAD MANY CAMERAS IN THE PLAZA. I DO NOT CLAIM TO KNOW WHERE THE CAMERAS WERE, OR HOW THE FILM WAS FABRICATED. I DO NOT KNOW WHO FABRICATED THE FILM. If Stizman and Zapruder were part of the plot why not have one of them film it? I HAVE NO IDEA WHY OR HOW Z&S WERE INVOLVED. THE ONLY REASON I CAN THINK OF IS THAT THE PLOTTERS NEEDED "A CIVILIAN" TO CLAIM AUTHORSHIP OF THE FILM. MY OPINION IS THAT THIS WAS FOOLISH. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF WITHOUT ANY FILM AT ALL! BUT THE PLOTTERS (LIKE LBJ) WERE VERY EGOTISTICAL, AND MAYBE WANTED THE FILM AS A "TROPHY OF THEIR KILL". What was to be gained by filming from one location and saying it was filmed from another? THE FILM WAS FABRICATED, USING A "PILOT FILM" MADE FROM THE PEDESTAL, PLUS OTHER FILMS THAT SHOWED WHAT HAPPENED. NOTHING WAS GAINED BY THE CONSPIRATORS BY HAVING SUCH A FILM. NUMEROUS FILMS LIKELY WERE SHOT FROM VARIOUS LOCATIONS. WHY NOT CONFINE YOUR COMMENTS TO THINGS WITH CORRECT INFORMATION, INSTEAD OF SPREADING MISINFORMATION? JACK

I'd like to think about this for a day or so-- although I can't cite chapter and verse the US government 'official' position regarding Vietnam - I do have a few personal observations, about ther early day's 1963-65 David Healy US Army MAAG-Vietnam 1963-64

'Craig Lamson' wrote: Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit. ________ What? If he turned with his back towards Elm Street and faced Sitzman, perhaps. Zapruder has NO backlight in that photo, the Zapruder camera position has more than adequate KEY-SIDE light from Weigman's camera position. What you need there Craig, is a few 5K HMI's and a 2K (all 5600) rim light "behind" Zapruder and Sizman now THAT's outdoor backlight (or the sun), then we could see whose actually ON the pedestal, (despite the piss poor quality of ALL photos/film taken that day which I do find interesting in and of itself, that we mere mortals have been allowed to view) -- nobody can positively ID him, Zapruder (based on on-the-record DP photos), not that I doubt it's probably him.

[...] Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point? [...] Zapruder was backlit? roflmfao! Photographer and photo anaylyst, yeah, right..... LOL

[...] Dave your link lead to a nice little history lesson, just what is it supposed to prove? No one disputes that optical printers existed for a long time. So the Army got some in WWII. So just when exactly are YOU going to get around to citing a single movie made around the time of or before the assassination that utilized such extensive compositing and doesn't look obviously faked? And since you seem to be implying that the Army's printers were used maybe even a movie made in 1942 or earlier. dgh03: it's called education for the uninformed, such as yourself -- honestly, you're a 'real' piece of work, aren't you? One only has to perform a few "google' searches and have all pertinent data at you're fingertips -- but not the Gang -- roflmao! They don't read film industry journals, don't read books, don't consult film industry experts, terrified of interviews, they don't need too, they got the Len! ROFLMAO -- can't tell us what RZavada perfected, nor WHEN..... nice try, Gary! Dave now that I've got you dancing on the end of my string again why don't you reply to my last post on the other thread? dgh03: oh, Len or whomever you are.... checkout Bernice's contribution in the other thread, regarding the Nix film..... they have remailers in South America? LOL! <snipped the rest>

Pat wrote: I'm not sure about the Altgens reference but Rather has admitted many times that he simply made a mistake when he described Kennedy's reaction to the shots. He saw Kennedy get hit in the head, fall back onto the seat and fall over on the seat. Rather says he simply forgot about the back-and-to-the-left motion as he ran back to the station. He has never suggested that the film he saw that day was any different than the film as shown today. People make mistakes reporting things. It doesn't mean they are part of any conspiracy. dgh01: What reason Pat do you suppose he had/has in NOT correcting his error, EARLER. He forgot about viewing the film of the century Since by the time Rather saw the film he wasaware of the gun in the TSBD, and since, unlike Hoover, he had an understanding of the layout of Dealey Plaza, it's possible he'd expected to see evidence for a shot from behind and that this poisoned his ability as an impartial witness. dgh01:I proffer; he, Rather knew he blew it; had no intention of standing in front of a national tv/radio audience and admit he made a mistake

Point well taken, and understood, Stephen. However, prior the Geraldo show screening -- who cared about the contents of the Z-film? Nobody but the Warren Commssion saw the extant camera original Zapruder film run after Feb '64, if that late and IF what THEY saw was the alledged camera original in the first place! Prints of prints of prints, ad nauseum are what researchers viewed/saw projected when they went to the archives for a "preview" of the film -- No side by side comparisons of ANYTHING (relating to OTHER DP films - not even in question at the time) All the pissing and moaning by "preservers of Dealey Plaza Photographic history", he-he, if they wanted to deliver a "knock out" punch to the pro-alteration camp, they know whats required... they won't, because they can't. Any, ANY attempt on their part to clean up alledged Z-film/eye witness testimony - discrepancy would create a torrent of questions, most notably bringing the SBT theory (which ALSO drags in the Moorman5 photo and early SS/FBI re-enactments) into question and THAT will NEVER happen -- best they can do is stay below the radar screen (which means have others do your posting for you) and send in pissants, in a attempt to discredit those that question the *DP photographic record 'status quo' along with 6th floor museum endorsements...* DH

Len Colby' continues.... [...] Roland Zavada one of the World's leading film experts and the inventor of the Kodakcrome II film that Zapruder used didn't think the technology existed nor did Oliver Stone (according to Gary Mack) nor the movie director Pat consulted. dgh02: before I go any further, Mr Colby, what technology was it that Roland Zavada THINK [?] did NOT exist in 1963? Not hearsay Mr. Colby, a quote from Roland Zavada would do quite nice. Do you know who Linwood Dunn is, Mr. Colby? for lurkers who have a interest in the subject follow this link: http://www.photosonics.com/Milestone%20HTL...wood%20dunn.htm pay particular attention to what company he dealt with in 1942 Ask Rollie [a retiree from KODAK] if he knows who this is? rest snipped

Bill Kelly wrote: [...] I'd like to keep us on the road to answer those questions. ____________________ AMEN! ! ! ! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Bill Kelly David Healy

'Stephen Turner' wrote: It appears that the Zapruder thread has degenerated into name calling, and point scoring.If the protagenists wish can we start again? dgh01: Stephen, I wouldn't worry about the name calling, too much! There are NO points to score, only maintaining staus quo. I believe that the argument breaks down into four questions, namely.. 1, Did Zapruder take the "Zapruder" film? dgh01: there is NO photographic evidence that clearly shows and identifies Abe Zapruder as the taker of the "Zapruder Film" -- that said, it makes not one wit of difference who took the film from the DP pedestal! 2, Did the necessary technology exist in 1963 to do what the alterationists claim? dgh01: Of course it did, in various forms it existed in the 1920-30's, all forms clearly in the 1950's 3,Were other films/photo's altered to agree with the extant Z film? dgh01: or, was the Zapruder Film altered to match the OTHER film or was the Moorman5 photo -- ah, that another story.... other films and photos were irrelevant when the WC screened the Zapruder Film 4,If it was altered, why? dgh01: the extant Zapruder film is the hub for the SBT, along with the Moorman5 photo. All other film or photo controversies of this day, pure window dressing ! The WC formally screened the Zapruder Film in Feb '64 [one time ONLY - to the best of my knowledge] -- the crux of the finalized WCR leaves: LHO being a lonenut gunman, no conspiracy... so, WW3 was averted. ANY alteration to the Z-film was for that intended result, avert WAR! End of story -- Good luck with your quest Stephen.... dgh I am aware that other questions about this exist, but i feel the above is the nub of the case. Gentlemen please, no name calling, best evidence when asked to provide it, and unless anyone has a good reason why, stick to the agreed perimeters.

Colby ho-hum.... again [...] dgh02: btw, EVERY film created between the years of 1920 and 1975 had/have some sort of optical film special effects applied <noise clipped> See above if you are going to cite obscure books you really should quote excerpts that support your theories. If there so many examples what don't you cite us some movies and scenes, then whomever was interested could rent those titles and judge for themselves if it was realistic. dgh02: Mr. Colby er, whomever you are.... I have no, I repeat NO intention of dangling on the end of your string If NONE of you "experts in film compositing" don't have the balls to read a few SMPE manual especially those indexed in Fielding's book. Don't waste my or any other members of the forum time. The Zapruder film is the focus. Either educate yourself, or find something in the jungle to play with.... <more noise clipped> Stone started studying at NYU Film School (one on the best in the US) in 1969 so it's probable that he knew what was and wasn't possible a few years earlier. Maybe Stone laughed at the possibility that such effects were possible in the late 60's or later. If Feilding's book is the standard reference that you claim it's hard to believe Stone didn't read it. dgh02: and I thought my university was the best around that time, imagine that: a ex-pat import/exporter informing us what OStone MIGHT of thought -- re your comment stating Stone was not aware of Fielding? rofl........ Fielding however did teach in SoCal, for many, many years (give 'em a call, send him a email - he's not that hard to find) -- Probable? Possible, your living in a dream, Len -- Now, for your specific attention: Roland Zavada was a member of the Execitive Committee at SMPTE at one time, he was attending a conference in California 2 years ago when I last spoke to him... so, obscure/organizations/documents? ROFLMAO! Come in out of the snow, Len. And please, when I cite something, I'll deceide whether its *standard* reference or not -- thanks though for help putting words in my mouth -- dolts have a habit of doing that, why's that Len ole pal?

I have no doubt you (amongst others) were following this thread with "avid" interest... Understanding photography? What a concept!! LOL, a business associate and partner here in Las Vegas has been following your foolishness for a few years, now he might be considered a expert in evaluating photog's and their work, not to mention THEIR skills. He, having worked in Ansel Adams darkroom for quite a period of time might be considered a true photographer and darkroom technician (unlike digital wonders of these day's - know what I'm saying?) CL: [...] "Third, some of us also understand that the major proof in your silly book was produced by a math teacher who has lost his clue. Simple emperical study proves him totally off base." offbase? then surely you can FIND a physicist that will take his story apart, piece by piece, right? Why haven't you been able to do that, Craig Lamson? (sp.?) YOU, photo composites, on film? Then please post a URL for your latest and greatest, surely if you boast that you've done compositing work, you'll share it with all of us -- yes, please show us your expertise in the subject matter... Regaring your second point: CL: "[...] STFU [...]" Shut the xxxx up? That's very un-Christmas like, Craig! Why would the great preservers of the Dealey Plaza photographic record all of a sudden, cop a attitude? I think you owe me and the FORUM a apology! btw, send the varsity the next time, Colby can't make the frosh-soph team Yes, Virginia -- there is a Santa Claus....

dual post

and Colby continues... I don't care which program you used but Dave have you ever done compositing without using a computer? Yeah we all know you've read about it, but have you ever done any? If not what qualifies you as an expert? Anybody can read a magazine. [/size][/font] dgh01: irrelevant -and- irrelevant - Raymond Fielding is the published expert - evidently you CAN'T read magazines SMPE/SMPTE magazine in particular, nor the book called HOAX -OR- The art of Special Effects Cinematography It's interesting that you use examples done on a computer as evidence that something similar could have been done in the early 60s. Even if it’s true that compositing software put optical printing houses out of business, that is at best irrelevant. Couldn’t it just be possible that what’s possible with a computer today wasn’t possible back in ’63? Your images look OK in low resolution in the book can high resolution copies withstand examination after being transferred to movie film? Obviously those images you made don't prove a thing. dgh01: the entire book was published from computer files -- you that much of a moron? roflmao! Looks like your going to have to find a few film compositing pro's to back up YOUR theory it wasn't possible, good luck -- other's have had a 3 year problem getting there..... the imaghes in the book have NOTHING to do with film resolution NADA, Zippo -- By-the-way can you tell ME the resolution (in pixels) of film? Tell me all about film mattes, Mr. Colby, ANY kind of mattes. At the moment you've no leg to stand on regarding the technical aspects of film alteration, just noise! Oft repeated NOISE The fact that special effects and optical printing and compositing were all available back in 1963 or earlier are not in dispute. What is in dispute is Could the types of alterations your clique alleged were made possible? Dr. Costella perhaps the only high school teacher with a PhD in science wrote dgh01: again Mr. Colby find a film post production expert these day's a lot of them can be found in the Hollywood post boards -- most of whom are now After Effects users, sorry for that bit of bad news... You're not on peer level with JCostella, hell, nobody knows who the hell you are! "When the forgers made the Zapruder film, they needed to use genuine film of the limousine and the people in it, to make it look realistic—they couldn’t just get Warner Brothers to draw cartoons! They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street. dgh01: you REALLY need to read the book, your display of igfnorance regarding the sub ject is pitiful Some changes could be made. They could 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. dgh01: what are you smoking down there? Tell me Dave what movies was anything like that done in? Don't tell us about Mary Poppins unless can you tell us what scenes had anything like that. C'mon Dave dig through those magazines and tell us in which movies were peoples limbs cut off and made to move around like marionettes. dgh01: see SMPE/SMPTE journals (indexed in Fielding's book) If such alterations were made could they have been done so perfectly as to be undetectable? Zavada didn't think so and according to Gary Mack and Pat Speer, Oliver Stone and another movie director didn't think so either! dgh01: I believe Zavada is on the record as saying he won't/can't comment on the content of the film. And who cares what Mack Speer or Oliver think -- What makes you think Oliver Stone knew much of what happend in a film lab in the early 60's? Was it possible to do such compositing with small 8mm film? Zavada doubts this too. dgh01: read the book, it wasn't done in 8mm format -- You know, really - your unfamiliarairity with the book and the process[es] is quite telling here.... Was it possible to have made the alterations before some frames appeared in Life? When exactly were the original and altered films switched? Was this before or after Zapruder made copies? Before or after he gave the copies and original to Life and the Secret Service? The contributors to TGZFH believe the frames that appeared in Life show signs of alteration and that more extensive alteration might have been done later so there would have been two switches actually several because there were various copies at that point. dgh01: JCostella covers this quite nicely in the book -- How could the conspirators have been sure no one made copies with out them knowing it? If an 'unaltered' copied or less altered copy showed up it would have blown their conspiracy. Same goes for other home movies of the assassination, what if someone filmed it and released it to the media before they found out about it? From what I've read that's what happen with the Muchmore film. dgh01: many altered copies of the Z-film are in circulation, TODAY -- Take the MPI version for example, ask Gary about the problems with THAT version, VERSIONS actually Is there any reason to doubt Zavada's conclusion that the Z-film is a camera original and could not have been doctored? So are going to tell us he no longer believes the Z-film wasn't altered? If so don’t be shy tell us about it. dgh01: Whatever gave you THAT silly idea? I do believe your posting habits are familiar -- LOL! Dave try replying to all my points for once instead of cherry picking one or two? dgh01: your running out of time, er Mr. Colby from Brazil ROFLMAO!Do some research, ORIGINAL research for a change! Have a nice Xmas, Craig

Colby meanders... [...] What exactly are Healy's qualifications as an expert of film compositing? He has refused to post any examples of work he has done and the composite he made for TGZFH to prove that such alteration was possible back in 1963 was done on a computer using Adobe AfterEffects!!!! ________ I do declah, Martha -- the gem DOES read, ROFLMAO! Now if he could only discredit SMPE/SMPTE documents as to what was possible, in fact actually performed in the field of special effects film cinematography and optical printing (for which OSCAR awards were presented for technical achivement) during the late 50's and early 60's, we'd be in business. And, those images (all of mine DUH!) in TGZFH were created in Photshop5 and Painter5, NOT AfterEffects!! What a moron! As it happens, I happen to be quite experienced in Adobe After Effects. A commercial film/video compositing software, which by-the-way put many, MANY optical film printing houses out of business. Get your disinfo straight I told you not to depend on sources such as Lamsom, Mack and da Tinkster -- Nor Wimp or Durnavich... Next you'll be telling me all about Pov-Ray .... Have you called Rollie, yet? Need his e-mail address? ROFLMFAO? Is this an indication that you fellows have a financial interest in promoting these theories? (Just teasing--I know there's not much dough to be had on the conspiracy side. At least not these days... If you'd only created some animation "proving" that Oswald acted alone, then you'd be rolling in it.) Haven't made a dime, Pat! Can't say that Oswald wasn't involved, either..... Z-film dispute is a side show... David

Good! I think I'm too old for the classroom now...I look forward to getting involved with the discussion -- more hearing and reading than talking. Writing The Berlin Conspiracy, while a work of fiction, made me realize just how much there is to learn -- and how much is missing -- from the assassinatin record. I can think of many questions I'd like to ask, but i will have to take my time and look around, find my way into the discussions. I lok forwrd to it. Understood...Do you get testy when its suggested that the film has been aletered, or that it has not been altered? While I've read a great many books on the assassination, I am aware of how much knowledge I'm missing. I never heard it suggested that the film had been altered. What's the story? I'll put a few sentences together later today, have to upgrade this computer operating system this morning. Been around the film/video studio-post production business (in particular compositing, last 25 years) for 40 years now. I contributed a article for the book: The Great Zapruder Film HOAX in 2003. The question for the book I addressed was: IF the Zapruder Film was altered; was the technology, equipment, man-power, TIME and know-how available in 1963-64 to do such alteration? David Healy I'm not an expert, but in my exerience, it would have been possible with optical printing to change the original negative, but I don't know if it would have been easy to hide the changes from experts. My question is this: If someone wanted to change it, why would they make it look like JFK was being shot from the front? What was the motive of those who did the altering? I recall that the film was presented in a magazine (LIFE?) with the frames in the wrong order. Am I right about that? Does that have anything to do with the theory that the film was altered? Few possible answers: A.) a shot from the front, in my estimation, is irrelevant. So why alter the film? Remove the on-site, witness supported JFK limo stop on Elm street. The SS implications would be obvious. If not a part of the plot (and I not sure they were) at the very least, malfeasence. The extant Zapruder film, as it sits in the National Archives, supports the single bullet theory (SBT) three shots - 2 hits [Kennedy/Connally] - one miss [Tague wounding]! B.) The original FBI/SS assassination investigation reported 3 shots-3 hits with the major hit (3rd and final headshot) coming much further down Elm Street. After the reported Tague wounding, either a errant shot (whichwould mean 4 shots in Dealey Plaza) or a richoet, the 3 shot - 3 hit theory had to be changed. 4 shots in the Plaza that day would mean CONSPIRACY [another shooter] -- Oswald could not have fired 4 shots in time alloted re the Zapruder film... ANY alteration of the Zapruder film was performed for the sole reason of convincing the Warren Commission [as that was the one and ONLY audience for the film, which by-the-way wasn't screened by the commission till late Feb '64] there was NOT a conspiracy, they had the guy (Oswald), therefore the threat of WW3 was averted. IF that's the case, I would be the first to agree, altering the film was a good decesion - my question now is simply: the Soviet Union is history, that particular threat is over, IF the film was altered, resulting from a 'real' national secuity threat, why not set the historical record straight? The Z-film was never intended for public consumption, lifting frames here and there for publication is a meaningless diversion when it comes to authenticity issues of the 8mm film currently sitting at NARA (National Archives)... To the best of my knowledge, the extant film has noot been threaded up on a projector since Nov 22nd [when the 3 optical prints were struck] Any discussion regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder film sends folks [in certain quarters], those being with financial incentives and on-the-record, on-camera/ published NO alteration positions regarding the film into apoplexy. The Z-film is the fulcrum point of most Dealey Plaza evidence regarding the case, it was studied extensivley [by slect individuals] in the early days. the film was never question in public although there were rumblings as some eye-witness testimony didn't jibe with the film -- mainly, the Elm Street limo purported stop. There very well may have been a shooter from the front, whether he fired or not is irrelevant. My opinion is 2 shooters from the right rear and side -- IF there was a shooter from the front, it was a insurance position... And yes, LIFE and the FBI have transposed Z-film frames. The latest MPI DVD [a few years back]] had quite a few errors, complete with excising frames.... Way to many mistakes - which leads a few to think, certain effort is being made to throw researchers off...