David G. Healy

I just consider the source, Jack -- that's why I'm never disappointed.... :-) DVD's ship tomorrow PM Merry Christmas

roflmfao! roflmfao Read HOAX - everything Rollie has to say was covered in the book, why do you think he deceided to pass on the UofMinn symposium? -- You're about 3 years late when it comes to possible Z-film alteration. So forget GaryM as a source.... rofl As soon as you tell me you've spoken to Rollie [as I have] we'll have something to talk about, till then you're just noise, Len. Not irritating, just noise! Your apples are mush, much like Agent Mush, er, Tony Marsh---- roflmao

Colby continues to drone on.... [...] Dave, all the questions in my last post still stand you can insult me all you want and bring up irrelevant technical points but you won't con anyone. I'd say nice try but that would be a lie it was a pretty poor one. [...] F L A S H - One can not insult a stump -- read the book Hoax THEN ask technical questions till your hearts content. If that's to expensive for you go to your local library... Better yet, ask 6th floor Gary! Whom you're magically in coorespondence with, now -- roflmfao... However, he hasn't a clue about compositing either... nor Tink, nor Lamson, nor Wimp, nor Duravich, you're just one of the *peanut gallery's* latest noise maker to join the fray Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing?When it comes to alteration issues -- EXACTLY right, Tom ALL counts! You another one that can't spell a last name right? I apologize for misspelling David Healy's name; it wasn't deliberate. To do so on purpose would be rude. T.C. accepted! thanks Tom. Has happened with others with no technical competence in the subject matter. 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

Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing? T.C. When it comes to alteration issues -- EXACTLY right, Tom ALL counts! You another one that can't spell a last name right? David Healy

Len Colby dronned on and on and... Can't say that I do, while fairly knowledgeable about still photography I don't know much about filmmaking. How exactly is this question relevant? Or are you just being a smart-ass? [...] okay listen up DUDE, it's clear you haven't a clue about the Zapruder film, muchless read HOAX: double 8mm was the film in Abraham Zapruder camera Nov 22nd 1963, unsplit it remains in its 16mm form after processing, in 8mm form after it's been processed indicates it's been split. Get educated! If your not aware of that relevance, you've absolutely nothing to add to ANY discussion regarding the Z-film. So, when your up-to-speed regarding matte painting, optical film printing - then we can talk timing... You know Shaneyfelt? Yep, I'm a smart-ass, douche-bags bring the best outt'a me!

Welcome to the forum, Tom! It can get testy around here around here at times. Real testy when it comes to the possibility of Zapruder Film alteration... Look forward to your participation... David Healy

"...people poised?" What the hell are you talking about? Dave - Poised is of course the past tense of poise. Webster's has 3 defenitions for poise (as a transitive verb) # 3 is: "3 : to put into readiness " so Tim was using the word correctly and in a logical way. He was asking if the conspirators had people standing by ready "to grab and alter any movie film of the assassination?" What would they have done if someone developed a film that they didn't know about? Just one such film would have ruined their plan and made a conspiracy even more obvious. Since you guys argue that the film was altered before the stills were published in Life a couple of days after the assassination they would have had very little time to make all the alterations claimed in TGZFH. When exactly was the forgery made? 1) During the time when the original was being 'developed'? 2) When the dupes were being made? 3) Between the time Zapruder gave the original to the people from Life and when it was published? No, No scratch that you guys claim the whole thing was done that evening!!! So they must of had people poised! But wait you also argue that some people saw the "unaltered" Z-film that evening. Ok so what time did Zapruder drop off the film and when did he get it back? How many hours did that leave them? But wait you also say they had years to make the forgery! I'm confused, so did they make a "quicky" and then make a more extensive forgery? Please clear this up! Do you know what double 8mm film is? Split and unsplit? Leave them for WHAT -- see directly below 2-3 weeks, 4 optical film lab techs, 2 matte painters, 1 glass painter and its done..... lest you or anyone forgets -- the intended audience for a forgery was the Warren Commission whom saw the film [some of them anyway] in February, late February '64.... Pretty plain your not up to speed -- call Gary! Or read HOAX Tell you what, you tell me the name of anyone that has seen the alledged camera original Zapruder film or one of the 3 original optical prints laced up in a projector and projected on a screen after February 1964 and I'll tell you when Abe hand carried the film to Kodak/Jamieson... Be nice if this someone could provide a sworn affidavit and a chain of custody log for same film they viewed Len Colby drones on [...] No, No scratch that you guys claim the whole thing was done that evening!!! So they must of had people poised! [...] Ah, who is YOU guys? And who said the film was edited that evening? I need a cite for that, you do know what is, don't you?

"the leading technical expert on the film " Well we can't fault him for false modesty! I always wonder about people so eager to "blow their own horn" get educated regarding the subject matter, think for yourself for a change - give it a shot, who knows what you'll show us

part of the problem is YOU strain logic -- "...people poised?" What the hell are you talking about?

Pat, did you actually ask any photographers or film-makers if it would have been possible to pull off the alterations that the contributors to Hoax claim were made? Film-maker Mark Sobel, who has only spent 5 years of his life filming and editing his movie The Commission, has said publicly that the film could not have been faked as suggested. I have a close friend who is a film producer and music video director, and who is aware of all the visual gimmicks under the sun, and he laughs at the notion the film was faked. Josiah Thompson and Robert Groden, two of the reseachers who pioneered the study of the Z-film, are also skeptical about any alteration. This of course makes them "the bad guys" to the alterationists. Hello Pat, Maybe Mark Sobel can laugh his way over here and we can speak to his knowledge of film compositing and techniques for accomplishing same. Your producer buddy aware of all the visual effects gimmicks under the sun [which I doubt] maybe he'll do us all a favor and drop by too? 5 years ago I tried to get Mack and Thompson for a Z-film symposium, which I wanted to do at the 6th floor, no soap there... Lest we forget Roland Zavada quick decesion to NOT participate in the 2003 UnivofMinn Z-film Synposium. The BAD GUYS keep on ducking - I suspect it's because they haven't a clue regarding the subject matter... to much VESTED interest in the single bullet theory, which of course is a pure LN wet dream

Hi Ed, Been quite a while -- Nice to see you here, there's a few researchers hereabouts, more than a fair share of those that need attention, ANY kind of attention, too.... Hope you have a nice holiday season! David Healy

No, I don't have any experience in composite film photo analysis but then again no one else in your cabal does either nor do I have experience forensic photo analysis but neither do you or any of your co-authors. Since I know little if anything about the field, I don't pretend to be an expert. Costella who couldn't figure out how to photograph his own shadow so that it was diagonal to the film plane and who argued (like Jack White) that it's impossible to have shadows that aren't perfectly parallel when there is only one light source has zero training or previous experience in photo analysis but pretends to be an expert. White claims to be a forensic photo expert despite having no training in the field. He often makes gross errors in his analysis. You claim to be an expert but refused reply to Craig when he asked you about your own work. Doing so won't establish one way or the other if such alteration was possible back in '63 but would [if the work is well done] establish your credentials in composite film work. And if you have any actual forensic experience let us know. I never claimed that I had debunked or found fault with any of the arguments made by you and your associates only that others had. One of several sites that does so is Assassinated Science, http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/, my computer which has most of my files and bookmarks if broken (I'm using a notebook) so I can't reference all the pages I found. Fetzer et. al's work on the subject can hardly be considered scholarly, it wasn't peer reviewed, unlike David Wrone's book which I understand refutes many of the alteration claims. Since you are making a controversial claim excepted by no experts and very few members of the JFK research community it's up to you to back your claims. If there is any truth to your claims the value of finding expert backing wouldn't just be to "entertain the likes of 'stumps' such as" me but to convince all the others who doubt your theories about alteration and perhaps arrive at the truth. Don't try to switch the burden of proof, it up to you and you friends to back your claims not for doubters to disprove them. If you truly didn't care why did you reply? Your feigned arrogance doesn't help your cause. -I already asked you twice to cite a film made around the time of the assassination with comparable alteration, but you refuse to respond. The best you can do is tell me and others to read some articles or a book. Your inability to cite one leads me to believe that there are any. Pat's filmmaker and photographer friends left him with the impression that the know how to pull such an alteration didn't exist back then and that sounds about right to me. - I'm not terrified of anything, I don't have anything invested one way or the other in the alteration debate and compared to most participants in this forum I'm only marginally interested in the assassination debate - Your 'write a book" defense is getting old. I don't pretend to be an expert Interesting you didn't even try to debate that point. Judging people by their track records is quite reasonable. ROFL Why, oh WHY would I debate someone, anyone claiming no knowledge of the subject at hand? That is IF I choose to debate in the first place! I suspect the contributors of HOAX feel the same. Peddle your ignorance elsewhere -- btw, have a nice holiday.

'Colby' dronned on and on and .... Untrained experts and out right amateurs like Fetzer, White, Costella, Healy and Clark can study the Z-film frames all they want and point out supposed anomalies with out proving a thing. dgh01: if I recall correctly you stated you have NO experience in composite film photo analysis. Which makes me wonder why you go through your concerted effort in debunking something you haven't a clue about. Now I understand the subject matter is difficult to comprehend, but rest easy, there are books out there for rank amateurs such as yourself to make the sledding a little easier. The jungle air doesn't do you well, perhaps! Most (if not all) of their claims have already been debunked or are very much in dispute. dgh01: I await your scholary attempts, that's all they'll be, attempts! ROFL, maybe the Tinkster will give you a hand What would be far more interesting would be if they could find a single recognized forensic photo analyst to support their claims. I imagine they've looked under rocks in the four corners of the globe, but they don't seem to have found one yet. dgh01: "interesting"? Who, praytell say they are dealing with this particular subject to entertain the likes of 'stumps' such as yourself -- YOU gotta be joking! So listen up, pal -- find yourself one, just one film compositing tech/technical director that will debund Costella's presentation, or mine for that matter. Actually I could care less what you or anyone else thinks concerning the Zapruder film alteration - non alteration. You, like most noise makers around here are too terrified to deal with published data/articles regarding the subject matter... I got a idea, publish a book on the subject, yeah, that's the ticket -- roflmao They put credit in so many hair brained notions it's hard to take them seriously for example Jack believes that [...] dgh01: your sounding so much like Gary Mack, pitiful!

If that's true Dave, I'm sure you could cite various examples of films made back in '63 - '64 which used composting so undetectably. One reason I find theories of alteration hard to believe is that even decades later composting in big budget Hollywood movies appears faked to the naked eye let alone withstand close scrutiny and frame by frame analysis. I don't care what some guy wrote in a book, I am interested in actual examples Shanet - Please fill us in on your experience training in forensic photo analysis or in photography and filmmaking in general Hello Len, I'm sure you've access to SMPTE [society of Motion Picture/Television Engineer] Society monthly periodoicals. They have a lengthy history. SMPE (as it was known before television) first act as a professional society was setting the standards for commercial 35mm film, in 1915. They've published (monthly) continuosly since then. Fielding's book cites SMPE documented compositing examples, hundreds of them. See the index. Any university of stature has them. You might want to read Raymond Fielding's: The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, Library of Congress Card Catalog #64-8116, 1965. Ray's book was reprinted in '68. A new edition came out within the past 10-15 years. Google the book title. Lot's of pictures covering the black art of film compositing, how things we're done in the40's, 50's and 60's. btw, no worries regarding 'forensic' photo analysis credentials regarding Fielding's book - even high school students understand it. Last I heard Fielding still teaches at the university level in Florida somewhere, did some consulting work for KODAK (I think it was KODAK, if I'm wrong sorry, Ray) along the way, too!

[...] Sometimes you don't know if anybody is listening. More to come, B. Kelly ____________________ Bill Kelly... Nice to see you here, Bill. Will be back up and running by the 7th of December Will drop you a note then.... Hope you having a nice set of holidays -- miss your muses re the Jersey shore.... David Healy

"debate"? Who said this investigation is a DEBATE?

John Simkin quoted Pat Speer [...] Those of us within the research community who wish to take our stories beyond the bounds of the CT community need to figure out how to remove those buzzwords from our one-sheet, how to make our story both palatable and credible enough for someone like Mike Wallace to risk his reputation on it. ___________ What makes anyone (in this day and age) think and/or believe getting the story to a "credible enough" Mike Wallace type is THE answer? Does that kind of placement and perspective give a story needed legs? Does that make the story more truthful than a lowly 'blog' version originating from Tanzania? Reality check: the media (music industry and its social commentary included) is in the business of selling 'media' and/or advertising in the same, PERIOD! ALL media manufacuturers have their individual brand of 'truth'. Then, there's the intelligence community! Reputation (Mike Wallace/60 Minutes included) does NOT necessarily equate = the truth. Best any of these outlets can do is 'vet' their sources.

If your the "tomnin" I think you are, nice to see you here - been following your postings on the USNET board for quite a few years... welcome! David Healy

Healy's tendency to insult instead of articulate any argument reminds me of Ann Coulter. He could be a "poor man's" liberal version of her. She wrote: "If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you said...In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It’s like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder". She is of course guilty of what she ascribes to liberals but it seems like Healy is doing his best to prove her right. We know what's going on here, Mr. Colby. You've attained *full* BUMP artist status on the board. Might I make a suggestion; get a book in print! Hell, even Ann Coulter can do THAT... Jealousy, is unbecoming!

I recall the same regarding the SR-71 - what do they feed you dolt's down there in the amazon basin?

Good article, thanks. Comments and hypothesis withdrawn - does ALPA have *influence* regarding NTSB findings? The Wellstone crash in particular? What can ALPA [the collective], tell the NTSB about ANY plane accident, other than opinion, comments and hypothesis? Can ALPA police itself when cause may be "pilot error"? When it comes to determining plane crash causes, I suspect ALPA's input-influence goes about as far as airplane manufacturers.

Yep, and also this: http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Do...d=1458&Tabid=73 and this http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Do...d=1458&Tabid=73 and this: http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Do...Id=785&Tabid=73 and this: http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Do...Id=785&Tabid=73 and this: http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Do...Id=785&Tabid=73 and this: http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Do...Id=785&Tabid=73 Guess David Healy doesn't know what he's talking about, either!

Evan Burton' dronned on: Mr Fetzer, I challenge you to put your hypothesis to any recognised organisation of professional pilots and publish their unedited reply here. _____________________ Ah, Mr. Burton, since when does ANY "organization of professional pilots" comment on American airplane crash investigations? Hypothesis included? Especially when a nationally recognized political leader found himself dead in said crash? Sounds like right-wing rationality to me... kinda like the White House investigating Karl Rove for some sort of flight of fancy (pardon the pun).

Peter Fokes wrote: I live in Toronto, Canada, and have been the CT moderator for John McAdams moderated newsgroup, alt.assassination.jfk for about 6 years. pretty good job, too! Welcome to this forum, Peter... [...] As moderator of the JFK assassination newsgroup for the past six years, I have become very familiar with the arguments of most of the active researchers and authors on the assassination, and regularly submit posts to the newsgroup. most interested in YOUR arguments as opposed to dot john editorial moderation/constraints! David Healy