David G. Healy

Nic touted:

For all of those who would like to see this claim tossed in the bin with Files, Greer, & Baker, say I.

____________

Lurk Nic lurk, you're in over your head... roflmao!

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...

_______________

and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/

Tim Gratz wrote:

[...]

it is time to get on with the research into the assassination of the president.

___________

TimG, curious -- what research (from above) do you have in mind?

DHealy

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

[...]

That's OK, Pat. Tim's not a lawyer, either, and hasn't been one for about a dozen years. In fact, the twelfth anniversary of having his licence revoked should be coming up quite soon, if memory serves. September, wasn't it, Tim?

And, yes, Tim is quite often wrong. He just hopes that if he spews a whirlwind of bluster our way, we'll not notice.

_______________

oh, me-oh-my... there goes my Pulitzer!

John wrote:

Everybody except Tim Gratz. He believes Global Warming is part of a global communist conspiracy. It is known as the Global Red theory. He knows that Fidel Castro is involved but has not yet found the evidence. He is still waiting for Karl Rove to send him the documents.

_______________

The 'Global Red Theory' produced temperatures in the range of 123 degrees in Las Vegas, Nv. In surrounding (LV) communities the temps were even higher -- don't look for those temps publicized in the media (other than the immediate Las Vegas media market), ANY type media -- Bad for business!

Craig penned:

Great! I can't wait to see what you can do David. It would be a refreshing to see you actually DO something for a change instead of whinning like a stuck cat.

______________

where oh where have I recently heared the term "whinning"? Shame on you ...

Still waiting for a reputable physicist to 'join' [or enlist] your camp? To set JCostella straight -- tough sledding, huh?

How is the "seamless DPlaza film sequence" coming along? Access to all those 1st and 2nd generation films and all - been what, 4 years so far?

Talk about credibility? ROFLMFAO!

George Bollschweiler wrote:

[...]

Common’ boys, get out of your corner and let's get back to what we are here for.

________________

"...what we are here for." A comment I suspect, turned question in a few minds hereabouts! Business as usual?

To get your 'diplomatic' career off to a start George, consider those on one side of the equation, the "rightist" side of the equation. They impeached a sitting US president over "lying" about blowjob in the oval office, yes? The lies (by whom) suggested recently regarding the war in IRAQ, are?

Maintain neutral status, George! This fist fight has been going on for some years...

[...]

Unless you have spent a great deal of time studying the effects of light and shadow, its very easy to screw up. Most laymen and many photographers cannot judge a shadow to save their soul. Thats the case here.

dgh01: imagine that, a lone neuter mentioning "save their soul". The irony...

In the case of the backyard photos the sun has not moved between any of the three frames and both the shadows on the fence and the Oswald body shadows on the ground are consistant with each other and to the light being in almost the exact same place for each of the three photos. Noting is out of place nor has the sun "moved" between any of the three images. The only things that HAVE moved are the camera and Oswalds body, which fully account for the changes in the shadow on the ground.

None if this is rocket science and can be proven easily with any camera.

dgh01: we await the demonstration

Shanet wrote:

[...]

This will be my final posting in the forum.

____________

Listen champ -- this case has dragged on for 40+ years now, nearly everyone in America believes conspiracy. Most worldwide that have awareness of the case, KNOW it's a conspiracy. Drudging up the same old-same old evidence won't cut it any longer! We need NEW blood and most of all, a new approach to old evidence and a most aggressive approach to NEW evidence, if that means running down new avenues well, so be it.... You're part of that new breed...

Pulitzers aren't earned by reading and "quoting" other folks work (a method displayed here - frequently)! A few, around JFK assassination related boards would like to create the illusion of thoroughness or breadth of JFK related trivia knowledge -- don't buy it for a second. There's a lot of info mining going on here...

Sometimes (and someone) this/they remind me of the game, TRIVIAL Pursuit...

Just the way the preservers of 'todays' flavor of history, want it!

When you stick a pin in specific subject matter, and wailing reaches fever pitch -- look around, you may have missed something obvious...

Your good, Shanet -- hang in there!! Keep posting

Pat wrote:

[...]

Over the last year I have read and studied a lot of the work of Robert Artwohl, Kenneth Rahn, Chad Zimmerman, Joseph Riley, Paul Seaton, John McAdams and Larry Sturdivan.

[...]

Thats quite a list of characters, Pat -- Might as well throw in 'The Poz', for more local flavor: David Reitzes and if course the imfamous Jerry... I could add another 10 or 15 names from over the years, but the bottom line re these kinds of "lists", almost all if not ALL are the "preservers of history", history that mimicks just the way the WC wrote it...

David Healy

John wrote:

[...]

(I hope these are easy to understand, I can twirl the graph about and view it from any angle to take these snapshots, so I'm familiar with them, is it an OK way to present info. to someone who hasn't seen it before?)

_____________________

Perhaps a reference image of the actual xray would be appropriate, yes?

David

John Dolva wrote:

Thank you, most heartening. I was beginning to wonder if I was just talking to myself . I hope that if something concrete comes of it that it will be seen as an 'open source' project...

[...]

_______

Plod on John, I can assure you, your work is being followed. Most closely, by a few that chose not to post here -- The Z-film is the cornerstone of the entire case regarding the single bullet theory. If the film is proved to be a fake, fraud, or whatever one wants to call it - history books will need rewritting...

John Geraghty wrote:

For my money....No. Though I envy those who believe in God as I would like to believe in God, so I am therefore in a religious limbo.

dgh01: I believe the term is call 'agnostic'... ?

Church leaders will tell you that it is about faith, but that faith is completely blind.

dgh01: as is American Justice, nice premise but difficult to achieve...

As for Jesus Christ, I believe it possible and likely that he once lived but that stories of him were contorted.

I have always found it irrational that myths of the Arthurian age are shrugged off as mere legend while feats Christ was said to have done which were equally unbelieveable are taken as fact. This to me is the principle reason for my disbelief.

So many intelligent people can believe that christ turned one loaf and one fish into many is ridiculous, plain and simple. I would believe it if you told me that Jesus was generous enough to share all this bread and fish that he had.

dgh01: when it comes to mans destiny; the sum total of man's decesions have got us to this point in time -- if THAT'S positive, by-all-means knock yourself out over the NO GOD side of the: GOD - 'No' GOD issue.

Christianity is no different from any other cult, except that it is widely accepted and beaten into your head at a young age.

I can't wait to see what 'miracle' the vatican comes up with to make john paul a saint, a man that stiffled growth like no other.

dgh01: stiffled growth? towards WHAT pray-tell, END? I need a 30th floor view here, a little vision if you will.... LOL

How ridiculous is it that priests are not allowed to marry, that women are not allowed to become priests and that people are not allowed by the church to use condoms, especially in this age of STIs.

The Catholic church needs a reformation big time, for hundreds of years it has refused to change with the world.

dgh01: make your case: the "world" is going in the right direction, it might make sense to Sunday morning Americans...

Ireland is a prime example of what a disastrous effect the church has when given too much power. Schools were run with an iron fist, you were told you were going to hell if you had innappropriate thoughts about someone of the opposite gender.

How many wars have been started in the name of 'God' .

dgh01: "the name of God" ? Should read; "man's interpretation of what GOD wants and suggests..."? Don't you think? Who owns the onus, THEN?

If religion did all it says it was created to do (peace, brotherly love and friendship) then I would be all for it, but in my opinion religion has created nothing but trouble.

dgh01: absolve man from his responsibility to his fellow man? I respectfully suggest you read the LORDS Prayer -- with vengence! Then we can move on to understanding: "render unto to Ceaser what is Ceaser's, unto to GOD, what is GODS --

The only proof that God doesn't exist is that there is no proof that God does exist ,and thats good enough for me.

Prove me wrong

dgh01: by the mere fact you participate in this thread, you've cause for concern regarding YOUR proof, as for me: hearing a young child sing if proof enough for me -- then again, I've always been a simple minded Irishman from Boston. Take care John Gerharty, you've many miles to trod...

David Healy

John

Christopher T. George wrote:

I posted this on another thread but I will post it here as well.

___________

I won't be responding in this thread -- responded to the other thread...

DHealy

Chris George wrote:

[...]

Having also read the Hoax site but not, I admit, having read Fetzer's Film Hoax book, I don't find the arguments on the website too convincing.

Jack White seems to imply that the whole Zapruder film is a hoax but I would say to that there is simply far too much to fake

[...]

________________

Might want to read the book before making to conclusions...

I suspect there are more contributors on the site that agree the 'entire' film is a fraud...

as to too much to fake -- your knowledge of the timeline - your experience in film compositing is?

Bet we get to the bottom of the JFK assassination before you finish thrashing out Jack 'da Ripper --

David Healy

[...]

27 pixels travel between frames 311 and 312 at 6.2 mph = 12 inches between frames = 9.1 frames per second, therefore 1 frame is missing between each pair of frames???? arrgghh thats not the result I expected.. what's going on here.

[...]

perhaps the Zapruder camera ran at 48fps instead of 16fps [FBI 18.3fps] as attested too -- in the optical film printing these frames were ommitted [every other frame-dropped]?

If untreated MPI images were used in your study, you're using MPEG2 images running at 30fps [2 fields per frame - odd scan lines: upper field - even scan lines: lower lower. note: this field order may be reversed, I can't remember]. When viewing individual frame, as a result; may cause slight verticle shift in blur, or horizontal blur broadening and measurable image softening.

If you have the MPI DVD, step through the frames as numbered, you'll see the same frames held for 2-3 frame counts... the standard for MPEG2 images (DVD form) is 29.97fps, if drop frame (somewhere in they're (MPI) process that COULD of been introduced, 30fps is straight NTSC video -- the Zapruder Film is/was rated at 18.3 frames -- best guess by the Fed -- we have no idea how many frames passed through the gate of Zapruders camera that day, or prior - we have no idea the exact feet/inches length of the Zapruder film - when loaded into OR unloaded from the Zapruder B&H414 camera.

Why seeing the film in its unslit form was so important, which of course nobody has any idea if unsplit side-by-side images exist -- especially with edge printing employed during the "optical print" stage.

Mark wrote:

As an American who was educated in the '60's and '70's in the public school system [and one who attempts to continue his education by reading, both print and electronic media], I recall being taught the principle of "Manifest Destiny" in US History classes. Simply said, it was a policy of unfettered expansion of the American frontier based upon the premise that American domination of the continent was preordained, that it was America's destiny, that this land was meant to be ours for the taking.

In the 20th century, the geographical expansion of America effectively ended; but in the 1960's there arose another group who put forward yet another doctrine of "Manifest Destiny," this time focused upon America's domination of space exploration and travel as our inherited right. I believe that JFK tapped into this national claim of a "right" to dominate space as he aimed NASA toward the moon.

Now, no longer could it be said "the sky's the limit;" there WAS no limit to the worlds that "manifest destiny" would propel us toward. But fate had other ideas, and America's "manifest destiny" in the sky began to fade as more earthly problems took over thas national consciousness. The Challenger disaster in 1986 brought home the perils of space flight, and the Columbia tragedy another 15 or so years hence brought the space program, effectively, to a halt.

Americans realized that the "manifest destiny" doctrine didn't work in space; then they began to question its application on good ol' Planet Earth. September 11, 2001 made many Americans question whether the heavenly protections and guidance they'd assumed for America was no longer in effect...and others questioned whether it ever was. For once, the American myth was exposed as such...and many weren't prepared to accept that. Particularly those who occupied offices in the Executive Branch of US government, some who don't yet understand that fundamentally good men CAN and DO make fundamentally BAD decisions that have fundamentally bad CONSEQUENCES with worldwide repercussions.

______________________

4 simple paragraphs! EXCELLENT, Mark Knight...

David Healy

TimG wrote:

[...]

I guess the members can now at last evaluate who is more likely the truth-teller, me or you.

[...]

more likely? The latter !

John Dolva wrote:

I have been re-reading this series of posts and they are ridiculous, Jack (and I know you said you won't respond) You state "He put together the Z-panorama which you have been using". NO, I have never used any panorama put together by anyone else, I have never said so. If I had been doing so I would have mentioned where it came from. I didn't mention any such thing.

Therefore an unsupported statement that I was using that is the same as an accusation at worst of plagiarism, at best an accusation of dishonesty or deceit. Furthermore, while putting together that panorama series I was unaware of any other such work.

dgh01: entirely possible -- there's room for disagreement in this thread -- appears you stated you USED Costella's frames of the MPI frames as opposed to the panorama of Elm Street -- if so, some will stand corrected. I might add if your using those frames for your analysis - I believe they've been deblurred, pin cushioning and barreling corrected

The follow on statements and actions based on this false premise and my response to it, I feel is beneath contempt.

dgh01: you want to sell ANYTHING to the Research community, then the world at large, you'd get use to it! Even if you SOLVE it! And you won't via photo analysis/interpretation without access to camera originals or 1st generation dupes

edit: The furthest I have thought on this is that some relationship between the DIFFERENCES quite apart from the indeterminable variables might provide some universal constant, even in terms of methodology. All along I have thought that there is something in the difference in the angle of the two blurs may be uniquely shaped by just the speed when comparing the two blurs on a stationary and a moving object. Input welcome.

dgh01: and IF the current imagery you're using is "deblurred", what then?

Your inital assumption, the use of unfettered Z-frames is the best route, where you'll find them is another question

John Dolva wrote:

I have been re-reading this series of posts and they are ridiculous, Jack (and I know you said you won't respond) You state "He put together the Z-panorama which you have been using". NO, I have never used any panorama put together by anyone else, I have never said so. If I had been doing so I would have mentioned where it came from. I didn't mention any such thing.

Therefore an unsupported statement that I was using that is the same as an accusation at worst of plagiarism, at best an accusation of dishonesty or deceit. Furthermore, while putting together that panorama series I was unaware of any other such work.

dgh01: entirely possible -- there's room for disagreement in this thread -- appears you stated you USED Costella's frames of the MPI frames as opposed to the panorama of Elm Street -- if so, some will stand corrected. I might add; if your using those frames for your analysis - I believe they've been deblurred, pin cushioning and barrel distortion corrected

The follow on statements and actions based on this false premise and my response to it, I feel is beneath contempt.

dgh01: you want to sell ANYTHING to the Research community, then the world at large, you'd better get use to it! Even if you SOLVE it! And you won't via photo analysis/interpretation without access to camera originals or 1st generation dupes

edit: The furthest I have thought on this is that some relationship between the DIFFERENCES quite apart from the indeterminable variables might provide some universal constant, even in terms of methodology. All along I have thought that there is something in the difference in the angle of the two blurs may be uniquely shaped by just the speed when comparing the two blurs on a stationary and a moving object. Input welcome.

dgh01: and IF the current imagery you're using is "deblurred", what then? Your inital assumption, the use of unfettered Z-frames is the best route, where you'll find them well, that's another question

Al Carrier wrote/quoted:

If the FIRST... shot cxame from the rear, probably he should have..[...]

Tim,

The key here is to look at this from within the motorcade and not in hindsight. Armchair quarterbacking the mistakes made after the fact would leave a critic of the SS into believing conspiracies within at every angle.

well, that's a bit of a stretch... make after action reports a useless exercise, dontcha think?

[...]

Remember that the Dallas Trip was crucial to expose Kennedy to the public ...

JFK needed the texas vote, with or WITHOUT Johnson in the next election cycle - not to mention, help repair in a upclose manner Texas Dem party politics...

[...]

Hill responded heroically IMO and in unbelievable timing to the event. To criticize the others for not meeting that standard is unrealistic.

they LOST their charge Al, JFK -- fini! Their sole reason for being in DP at that moment -- hero? (I'm sure if they [the SS] had the proper info, they might of avoided the area...).

When they 'recovered, maybe. They were stunned, then acted appropriate-inappropriate, -you choose- as we've heard.

One cannot focus on what had happened after the fact but instead put themselves in the place of the agents during the time and heap on their responsibility areas of concern and then throw in the curve ball that was dealt to them.

What? If NOT -- How does ANY agency (police or military) learn from ANY action? -- I suspect 'NO' Presidental Protection Detail agent, after Nov 22nd, spent the night drinking till wee hours of the morning then report for a 6AM shift. So your right, THAT wouldn't take much "focus"

Remember that they had just come off the congested and noisy portion of Main and in all likelihood let down their guard sub-consciously when they entered the quiet and nearly empty in comparison area of DP.

The plotters and assassins knew what they were doing. It was an ideal layout for them with everything considered.

so, in short, who was responsible? The assassin, obviously! Could the SS perform 'better', of course they could and WOULD -- I suspect the advance man took on whole new meaning!

Al

jack,

we'll be hearing from other quarters real quick now -- you know who!

David

John Dolva wrote:

[...]

The way I have been putting this and the Z frame panorama IS NOT FROM ANY ONE ELSES PANORAMA It is based TOTALLY on my own ideas.

dgh01: wonderful...

If Costello happens to have been doing something similar then that would not be so unusual. I have not seen any evidence of that.A lot of things happen like that. What came first? I think that from your description that Costello has already done something similar (of which I have not seen anything, I have read some parts of his descriptions of the film and some critiques and some alternative unconnected views. I agree with some things that Costello says, and not with others.My efforts are to see for myself what I can find out about Kennedy's murder. I don't want to be influenced by other peoples opinions where they may have made some mistakes in their basic premises. My reading unfortunately raises questions with some of his descriptions/conclusions. If he ( as opposed to having his kin here to do it for him) would like to come here and discuss his opinions I'm happy to do so. I have already said so.

dgh01: giving your self away here, perhaps? As to who/which came first, I doubt John Costella [thats with a 'A'] could give two xxxxs less about -- for the record he made his panorama around 3 years ago, and formally presented it at the 2003 Univ. of Minn symposium on the Zapruder Film, which has been memorialized on videotape and DVD -- it's also in the 2003 book: The Great Zapruider Film Hoax, of which John Costella was a part -- so, if you come up with anything to advance the case, he'd be proud a fellow countrymen added to the mix -- Perth is part of Australia isn't it? The photographer for the DP imagery used in the base panorama was Jack White

If there's one thing those here know, those that are familiar with photography and motion picture film taken in DP on 22 Nov '63, is abuse from newbies in the DPlaza photo/film research area, [actually some call them 'provocateurs'] -- ...

For you to accuse me of dishonesty is deplorable. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

Like I said before, and Costello having someone here to do it for him reaffirms it, I have now even less respect for names swimming in alphabet soup.

dgh01: Unless your a Roland Zavada clone -OR- Roland Zavada himself -- don't expect JCostella here anytime soon - you've nothing to add re the Zapruder film controversy except bandwidth for the moment. Now if you want to show us some compositing techniques using 1st generation Z-frames -- with optical film printing equipment circa. 1963 -- you might get some interest. You want analysis of your work, post the work, along with your thesis and/or what your trying to achieve/prove...

John

if the purpose of this is to divert attention away from the real issue of Kennedy's murder or to highjack my ideas or to engage in a spat of who thought of it first, it will prove interesting for any student of the research world.

dgh01: Hijack your ideas -- for WHAT? roflmfao!

Is it possible that someone who doesn't have squiggles before and after a moniker to be capable of similar thought to someone who does? Or, shock horror, the other way around?

dgh01: I sure as hell don't

anyway in the meantime, I apperecate any input that will go towards answering the questions I have been posing, I had no idea Frank was a trained physicist, but I did sense that he knows what he is talking about. I hope this sort of stuff will not hamper input.

dgh01: when Frank wants to get DP mapped onto a sphere, let me know, it was done a few years back using the appropriate topo elevations/documents -- JCostella needed it for the DP panorama.... he also wrote a deblurring software package...

The furthest I have thought on this is that some relationship between the DIFFERENCES quite apart from the indeterminable variables might provide some universal constant, even in terms of methodology. All along I have thought that there is something in the difference in the angle of the two blurs may be uniquely shaped by just the speed when comparing the two blurs on a stationary and a moving object.

btw. I dont know Jack, Frank or Costello or anyone else contributing here from a bar of soap. I tend to take people as they come.

dgh01: maybe we know you better than you know us? I too take folks as they come, to a point... you know anything about image de-blurring software?

David Healy

Frank Agbat wrote:

[...]

You've got an interesting idea here... I read your post a couple of days ago, and have been pondering it. Although I have no firm answers yet, there are a couple of things that come to mind.

1) The panning motion of the camera is non-linear. It is in the form of an arc. Technically, one must consider both angular velocity and linear velocity.

2) There is also the issue of angles involved. In this case, we have several known things -- linear distances between landmarks, frame-rate of the camera.

dgh01: the Zapruder B&H 414 camera had 2 speed options: 16fps (corrected 07-03-05) and 48fps (slo-mo) -- without viewing one of the 3 "unsplit' optical prints done at the Jamiseon Film Lab/Kodak in Dallas 11/22/63 created from the Zapruder camera original, we'll never be able to determine of the actual frame rate --- best guess the FBI/SS could do was 18.3 fps, which became the default "normal" speed of the camera.

In your estimation would horizontal/vertical frame blurring be the same at slo-mo (48fps) and regular film speed (16fps)?

However, angle of viewpoint and parallax needs to be considered when attempting to landmark a moving object with a moving camera against fixed points.

dgh01: evidently Kodak sold this camera with two types of lens [glass and plastic], not sure of the times. Marcel Dehaeseleer whom posts to this forum has a great site regarding the camera - well sourced too...

http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/

I'm assuming your aware of Physicist John Costella/Jack White work regarding the film?

However, I don't think any of these are show-stoppers. Don Roberdeau's plot of DP is incredibly useful for such things, among other things.

Additionally, you have hit on another thing that I find interesting -- the use of the pixel as a unit of relative measurement. Of course there is the issue of projecting a 3D image onto a 2D surface. That is unavoidable. However, for relative measurements, the pixel might be useful. We know much about the optical characteristics of the Z-film camera -- including critical factors of focal-length, depth of field, etc.

Using this information, any object in the Z-film could be placed within a sphere (or cone) 3-dimensionally based upon its 2-d X-Y and relative focus. This might lead to some additional insight to the placement of various objects.

Regards,

Frank

Ron wrote:

Thanks for the kind words. Just trying to do my part. It's also cathartic. BTW where is everybody? At the moment I've written the last 6 posts on the forum. I better quit for a while.

__________

Hi Ron,

Tracking down TimG in the wilds of Wisconsin, perhaps? LOL!

Not really sure, other than to say -- stateside, some are getting a jump on the long holiday...

Take care and again, great job on the website -- got me interested in ypour Vampire story

David