David G. Healy

Craig wrote:

David wrote:

"CRAIG you eluded to, and suggest; I said the entire film was composited? Why would I have said THAT? "

Thats clearly the point of the book on which your name appears. You dont suscribe to the main theory put forward in said book?

dgh01: you've read Technical Aspects of Film Alteration, yes? I don't say the film is altered, I say; "the equipment, technical know-how, personnel and the TIME was available to alter the Zapruder film.

If not than why not lay out your theory so we can all know exactly where you stand.

here's where I stand, I'm not positive the film is altered. WHY? Because I can't get access to the film for review and test purposes. MPI for all their know-how, screwed up, why should anyone trust those from years gone by telling ANYONE they have the "alteration" answer". However, based on attacks that I've personally witnessed to those that do believe the film is altered... [although not the only reason why] I'm leaning toward the alteration side of things. From both professional standpoint and personal, for me and others, all leads me to believe something significant is there. If true, the real question then becomes, WHY did the film need alteration?

I'm frankly amazed at the venom over the years. Who cares if the film was altered? Maybe it was "national security matters", so what -- it was 40+ years ago... we, the American public own that film now, we paid 16 million for it. Zapruder's estate got a nice tidy sum, not to mention a alledged tax deduction windfall, I say more power to them.

Let's get the Z-film into a lab with R E A L production types, all I need is a few frames for forensic purposes and a new set of 4x5's. After that, the alledged camera original can sit in a box at NARA forever, I don't care. Then we'll recreate Dec 1963 - Jan 1964 optical printing conditions, and make a few changes to a *new* Z-film, game?...

IF alteration claims, hold no water, why attack the messangers?

[Top Post]

I'll return to this later when I have the time. CRAIG you eluded to and suggest; I said the entire film was composited? Why would I have said THAT? Not necessary at ALL.

------------------

"or you can always ask ME, LOL !! I been compositing for 30 years or so... "

Really? How about posting a few frames David, done on film not digital. Give us a nice high rez scan, a drum will do say 1x141 600dpi. Give us one where you changed the background so we can check your cut lines and see how well your soft edge matts worked out.

dgh01: let's keep on point there Craig ole boy. The question isn't: did "I" have the technical skills, know-how, and was the equipment available to alter the Z-film in 1963-'64? You know that, don't you? Of course the answer is; there was abundant talent available to do that type of job -- I come a bit later, 7 years later....

So, lets see, you don't want something from me in digital format, then you tell me you want a digital scan of something, anything done on film? roflmfao! For what?

So, your telling me you can read a cut sheet, print logs, you can log frames, optical work orders -- that "mattes" as in soft-edge mattes, by-the-way.

Maybe you can show your expertise by telling us what the following means -- you'll find it on optical-effects charge orders: "Unless called for, fine grains used on this order will be disposed of in 3 months"

And then give us the production specs.

dgh01: pretty simple Craig, "make it believable", thats my job, make the effects believable... Tell you what, book a few hours with us on the DaVinci and I'll let you sit in my chair, how's that for benevolence, clocks ticking of course....

Then...and only then can we judge if YOU have the skill set you say you do. Then perhaps we can talk man to man about compositing on film.

dgh01:psst, I'm not on trial here Craig, yours and many others arrogance is. As to proving to you skill sets, doubt that'll ever happen, Craig. You see, NONE of you Lone Neuter's have taken the time to discuss, mattes, counter mattes, traveling mattes -- you're all sounding strangely like Tony Marsh these day's. A Tony Marsh that seems to be called a "xxxx" everytime he turns around. Now your a photog, a studio still shooter, (are you doing digital as opposed to shooting film these day's, btw? LOL) that doesn't quite cut it, certainly doesn't make you a expert in optical house matters...I suspect you haven't a clue about COSA/Adobe After Effects either.... damn software program closed up about 2/3rd's of the optical houses in the country....

Might be nice to see if you have something to offer other than "I read this book...."

dgh01: you'd be better off getting Joe Durnavich in here, maybe he needs a refresher in Pov-Ray... hell, send in Dale Myers... as to" I read this book...", hell, I helped write one too! THAT must kill you guy's.... roflmao!

And oh about White and his Apollo drivel. He's toast David. You next?

dgh01: I don't know about toast, Craig. Jack White? Well, Jack White posts and half the internet respond, I'd say he's got you loons on the short end of a string - So, I say; that's okay, many of us enjoy the show... Soon as taking pictures of trailers rates (not to say that it's unimportant) up there with compositing skills, we'll talk about toast, till then; why are you so sure the Z-film is unaltered? Tink, Gary told you so?....

Did I ever tell you about a few jobs way back when, '76-'77 at NASA-AMES...? We actually used CP-16's, you know what those are?

Its not about equipment David you know that. Equipment is a red herring. No, its about art.

I live in a world thats far more critical than yours. Yours the frames with all the mistakes just roll on by the viewer, filled with action and sound, pulling the viewers attention away. Composited movie films dont stand up to critical viewing. Of course you know that. Is that why you are hesitant to post some of your film work? Or are you just obtuse?

No in my world of compositing it has to be more than just "believable". It has to be perfect. My images are high res and the single frame stares you in the face forever. They dont move. There is no sound track to distract you, just a single image that lasts forever. Critical art...and its never critical enough.

Thats the issue David. Not optical printers, and .004 accuracy. No, its about people making art. People are not accurate to .004 and thats the problem. I've produced thousands of comps and its always the art that causes the problem, not the equipment.

Lets face facts and throw this equipment red herring in the dustbin where it belongs.

Hell even in the digital age its still the art that is the problem. Was watching Independence Day the other night and there in the closing scene was Will Smith and his son standing motionless for about 10 seconds in front of a blue screen composite with a the burning alien spacecraft in the background....and a huge black cutline around thier heads..... They had the equipment and they had the budget, but here was the closing scene and the art sucked...as usual.

And you want to tell me that they fabricated the entire z film? Fabricated and composited it to such a high degree of perfection that the work is undetectable. Sheesh. Come on back to the real world.

So lets talk art David. Lets put your equipment red herring in the dustbin once and for all.

I cannot imagine why anyone would even think about trying to alter the Zapruder film.

dgh01: doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who might be the blame for this tragedy. The above attitude may be just what [for those that may of altered the film] what they want, perhaps?

If those who allegedly altered the Zapruder film were so good - such brilliant

photographic whizz kids then why and how the hell did they make such a blatant hash and obvious mess of their so called alteration - like allegedly leaving out slits on the Pergola behind where Zapruder was standing. Yeah, leaving out - allegedly - the slits on the Pergola behind Zapruder.

dgh01: whizz kids? basic everday opticla film effects techniques, nothing special about possible alteration at all, the film now, THAT'S special!

How subtle can you get?

Presumably the advice given to these so called experts was something like:

"Do a good job now and whatever you do - don't make it too obvious."

dgh01: Do a good job? Nah -- just make it believable!

What sort of photographic expert would make such a whopper of an alleged

alteration?

dgh01: maybe you've found an anamoly, can you give us a pedigree, tell us what generation image you spotted this on and WHERE? So, what's your take on these missing slits?

This whole Zapruder alteration is getting ridiculos and will probably get even more so.

dgh01: the broad daylight murder of the President of the United States is ridiculous, shot in the back and the back of the head, to die in his wifes' arms - now THAT's...

EBC

JR Carroll wrote:

David Healy wrote "why are you so sure the Z-film is unaltered? Tink, Gary told you so?...."

Abraham Zapruder is the starting point of the analysis. He watched the assassination through the viewfinder of his camera. He testified under oath before the Warren Commission and again at the trial of Clay Shaw that the film in evidence is authentic.

dgh01: As he should be, the starting point. I suspect as case can be made as to whether he was atop the pedestal, filming that day. Based on DP photo evidence of the day, I certainly can't ID Abraham Zapruder as standing atop the pedestal... Personally, I could care less who took the film. I would like to know however, when the last time Abe Zapruder saw the **camera original** laced up on a projector and displayed...?

What film, Zapruder camera original or a Jamiseon optical print [which of the three] was used in the Clay Shaw trial? If it was a print of a print, how many generations down from the alledged camera original?

Therefore at this point Josiah Thompson doesn't have to prove anything because the burden of proof is on those who claim that the film is altered.

dgh01: no burden of proof falls here, Ray -- This isn't a courtroom -- Thompson doesn't have any burden, either... His story regarding the Z-film has been 'pat' since he worked for LIFE

Ray

"Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce

Pat wrote

I must confess ignorance. What the heck are all your references to Gary M about? Are you accusing me of being Gary Mack? Or of Gary Mack lurking on this Forum?

As for the SBT, I believe it's possible there was one bullet that hit Kennedy and Connally at frame 224. I also believe the Zapruder film reveals Connally to be out of position for this bullet to have come from the sniper's nest, and that it most logically came from the roof of the Dal-Tex.

As I've said, why fake or alter evidence to show a conspiracy?

[...]

________________

Pat, Do a google for Rober Harris on alt.conspiracy.jfk, you may be surprised... two hits one round [sBT] maybe truer than you think but, from the Dal-Tex bld'g -- only problem regarding that subject is the round delivered to authorities that first day, ISN'T the round currently at NARA these day's...

BTW, the SBT is a canard, why was the limo stop removed from the Z-film? That's the question!

Gary Mack doesn't post, not his job description these day's, so NO, I'm not accusing you of anything -- rest assured though he's lurking!

Healy writes:

"or you can always ask ME, LOL !! I been compositing for 30 years or so... "

Really? How about posting a few frames David, done on film not digital. Give us a nice high rez scan, a drum will do say 1x141 600dpi. Give us one where you changed the background so we can check your cut lines and see how well your soft edge matts worked out.

dgh01: let's keep on point there Craig ole boy. The question isn't: did "I" have the technical skills, know-how, and was the equipment available to alter the Z-film in 1963-'64? You know that, don't you? Of course the answer is; there was abundant talent available to do that type of job -- I come a bit later, 7 years later....

So, lets see, you don't want something from me in digital format, then you tell me you want a digital scan of something, anything done on film? roflmfao! For what?

So, your telling me you can read a cut sheet, print logs, you can log frames, optical work orders -- that "mattes" as in soft-edge mattes, by-the-way.

Maybe you can show your expertise by telling us what the following means -- you'll find it on optical-effects charge orders: "Unless called for, fine grains used on this order will be disposed of in 3 months"

And then give us the production specs.

dgh01: pretty simple Craig, "make it believable", thats my job, make the effects believable... Tell you what, book a few hours with us on the DaVinci and I'll let you sit in my chair, how's that for benevolence, clocks ticking of course....

Then...and only then can we judge if YOU have the skill set you say you do. Then perhaps we can talk man to man about compositing on film.

dgh01:psst, I'm not on trial here Craig, yours and many others arrogance is. As to proving to you skill sets, doubt that'll ever happen, Craig. You see, NONE of you Lone Neuter's have taken the time to discuss, mattes, counter mattes, traveling mattes -- you're all sounding strangely like Tony Marsh these day's. A Tony Marsh that seems to be called a "xxxx" everytime he turns around. Now your a photog, a studio still shooter, (are you doing digital as opposed to shooting film these day's, btw? LOL) that doesn't quite cut it, certainly doesn't make you a expert in optical house matters...I suspect you haven't a clue about COSA/Adobe After Effects either.... damn software program closed up about 2/3rd's of the optical houses in the country....

Might be nice to see if you have something to offer other than "I read this book...."

dgh01: you'd be better off getting Joe Durnavich in here, maybe he needs a refresher in Pov-Ray... hell, send in Dale Myers... as to" I read this book...", hell, I helped write one too! THAT must kill you guy's.... roflmao!

And oh about White and his Apollo drivel. He's toast David. You next?

dgh01: I don't know about toast, Craig. Jack White? Well, Jack White posts and half the internet respond, I'd say he's got you loons on the short end of a string - So, I say; that's okay, many of us enjoy the show... Soon as taking pictures of trailers rates (not to say that it's unimportant) up there with compositing skills, we'll talk about toast, till then; why are you so sure the Z-film is unaltered? Tink, Gary told you so?....

Did I ever tell you about a few jobs way back when, '76-'77 at NASA-AMES...? We actually used CP-16's, you know what those are?

I've waited for many years for a competent film analyst [with optical film printing expertise] to come forward. Thought we had one in, Roland Zavada. Best he can say is "he did NOT check the film for alteration...". He did however, have a problem when considering possible alteration, the time line, as does everyone without prior knowledgeof film compositing techniques.... He dealt with film properties and the camera primarily. Did he (Roland Zavada) have unpublished questions about the film? Perhaps! Now THAT, I suppose we can debate, but be careful, I know all Gary's lines

BTW, although you may be well versed regarding other JFK assassination related subjects, to the best of my knowledge your NOT up-to-speed discussing possible Z-film alteration, best I can see here is you've an "opinion", well, we know everyone has opinions, they're like... also, below is info regarding RFieldings book, you want expertise, might want to call him!

Below is my response to your post in another thread...should be enough to get you up-to-speed in the art of optical film printing -- might call Martin Shackelford for pointers, then again the best he can tell you about film effects is he went to the movies in 1963. Probably Tink Thompson or Gary Mack, maybe they can give you a few pointers.

Forget Craig Lansom, Jack White is keeping him busy (probably for 10 years) on NASA pics

______________

Pat wrote:

[...]

David, I was hoping this tread could be a spirited but respectful discussion between Mel and others over the single-bullet theory and other ideas prevalent in lone-nut country. If you wanna discuss film alteration let's do it on another thread.

dgh02: quite simply, Mel is a jerk, there are others on this board who have forgot more about the JFK assassination than Mel will ever know

P.S. I have read Dr. Mantik's work, and find him credible on certain issues. I respect the man. I also respect Dr. Fetzer. I've read Assassination Science and much of the Zapruder Film Hoax. I just don't agree with them on the alteration of the autopsy photos or the Zapruder film. I do suspect the lateral x-ray has been tainted or damaged in some way. While I don't worship expertise I do try and respect people who know what they are talking about , and I have yet to meet someone with a film background who believes the tecnology existed in 1963 to create a fake Zapruder film.

dgh02: "...find him credible on certain issues", LOL, tell you what Pat, are you qualified in reviewing then passing judgement on those conclusions? Simply reading Assassination Science and HOAX isn't enough when determining whether or not someone is qualified. Regarding film alteration, there was more than enough technology around to do the job?

How about, pickup and READ Raymond Fielding's The Technique of SpecialEffects Cinematography, First Published in 1965, reprinted in 1968, re-released in 198? Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116. If Raymond doesn't convince you of the FACT that the equipment, techniques, know-how AND personnel were available to do ANY optical printing deed late '63 early '64, hell, for that matter the early 40's, when optical printing really got underway; propoganda films for WW2 -- or you can always ask ME, LOL !! I been compositing for 30 years or so... Raymond still teachs film school in Florida someplace, reachout. You might take a peek at the INDEX in Raymond's book, review the SMPE [society of Motion Picture Engineers - which by the way was created in 1915, their first project was setting the film standards for 35mm film in 1915] footnotes dealing with film compositing *blackart* techniques, it's all there in black and white [pardon the pun]...

btw, Rollie Zavada, whom I've spoken to, on more than one occasion, regarding this subject, is/was (he may of retired recently) a long standing member of SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers)

My personal argument is that it is nonsensical to believe the government would fake the film, since the film.

dgh02: Who said the government 'faked' the film?( hell, even David Lifton doesn't think the government 'faked the film', that doesn't mean, they, the gov didn't think it was a good idea) Not I!

Ya see, there's problem with ANYONE deals with this film alteration issues. Simply, folks that don't know the craft of compositing, nor post assassination timelines, just jump in and muddy the waters, especially when dealing with: When and WHO saw what? How much relevance is currently placed on frames that were published, exmp'l: where frames cropped prior to publication? Did publications "touchup frames, transpose frames [out of sequence, just another word for ""alteration""] like the MPI folks did in their last DVD release, not to mention what the FBI did early on in the WC investigation...? There is precedence for "alteration" regarding the Z-film

as is, is convincing evidence that 1) Kennedy was hit before 224 from behind 2)Kennedy and Connally were both hit at 224 from behind, from a trajectory inconsistent with the TSBD, and 3) Kennedy was hit at 313 from behind. This makes at least three hits, which is inconsistent with Oswald's abilities. So why fake something that shows a conspiracy and then deny there's a conspiracy?

dgh:02 ahh, conspiracy is such a ""BROAD"" subject, isn't it? How about: create LHO as the sole, whacked out LONE assassin-patsy perhaps? That goes back to the Single Bullet Theory, doesn't it?

Anyway, when someone get's up to speed around here regarding optical film printing and motion picture compositing, well -- till then, I/we will just plug along waiting for the first opportunity to do a little film forensics

Hi GaryM, how are ya? Great NAB this year

David

Hi Bernice....

thatt'a girl

David

Pat wrote:

[...]

David, I was hoping this tread could be a spirited but respectful discussion between Mel and others over the single-bullet theory and other ideas prevalent in lone-nut country. If you wanna discuss film alteration let's do it on another thread.

dgh02: quite simply, Mel is a jerk, there are others on this board who have forgot more about the JFK assassination than Mel will ever know

P.S. I have read Dr. Mantik's work, and find him credible on certain issues. I respect the man. I also respect Dr. Fetzer. I've read Assassination Science and much of the Zapruder Film Hoax. I just don't agree with them on the alteration of the autopsy photos or the Zapruder film. I do suspect the lateral x-ray has been tainted or damaged in some way. While I don't worship expertise I do try and respect people who know what they are talking about , and I have yet to meet someone with a film background who believes the tecnology existed in 1963 to create a fake Zapruder film.

dgh02: tell you what Pat, are you qualified in reviewing that 'someones' background? How about, get and READ Raymond Fielding's The Technique of SpecialEffects Cinematography, First Published in 1965, reprinted in 1968, re-released in 198? Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116. If Raymond doesn't convince you of the FACT that the equipment, techniques, know-how AND personnel were available to do ANY optical printing deed late '63 early '64, hell, for that matter the early 40's, when optical printing really got underway; propoganda films for WW2 -- or you can always ask ME, LOL !! Raymond still teachs film school in Florida someplace, he's still out there. You might take a peek at the INDEX in Raymond's book, review the SMPE [society of Motion Picture Engineers - which by the way was created in 1915, their first project was setting the film standards for 35mm film in 1915] footnotes dealing with film compositing *blackart* techniques, it's all there in black and white [pardon the pun]...

btw, Rollie Zavada, whom I've spoken to, on more than one occasion, regarding this subject, is/was (he may of retired recently) a long standing member of SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers)

My personal argument is that it is nonsensical to believe the government would fake the film, since the film.

dgh02: Who said the government 'faked' the film?( hell, even David Lifton doesn't think the government 'faked the film', that doesn't mean, they, the gov didn't think it was a good idea) Not I!

Ya see, there's problem when ANYONE deals with this film alteration issue. Simply, folks that don't know the craft of compositing, nor post assassination timelines, jump in and muddy the waters. dealing with: When and WHO saw what? How much relevance to place on frames that were published, exmp'l: where frames cropped prior to publication? Did publications "touchup frames, transpose frames [out of sequence, just another word for ""alteration""] like the MPI folks did in their last DVD release, not to mention what the FBI did early on in the WC investigation...? There is precedence for "alteration" regarding the Z-film

as is, is convincing evidence that 1) Kennedy was hit before 224 from behind 2)Kennedy and Connally were both hit at 224 from behind, from a trajectory inconsistent with the TSBD, and 3) Kennedy was hit at 313 from behind. This makes at least three hits, which is inconsistent with Oswald's abilities. So why fake something that shows a conspiracy and then deny there's a conspiracy?

dgh:02 ahh, conspiracy is such a ""BROAD"" subject, isn't it? How about: create LHO as the sole, whacked out LONE assassin-patsy perhaps? That goes back to the Single Bullet Theory, doesn't it?

Anyway, when someone get's up to speed around here regarding optical film printing and motion picture compositing, I/we will just plug along waiting for the first opportunity to do a little film forensics

Hi GaryM, how are ya? Great NAB this year

David

Please extend to John my sincerest wish for a speedy recovery... I'll miss his posting here and forums as well.

David Healy

Pat wrote:

[...]

I agree with you that there's an awful lot of bs on this Forum and within the research community--Fetzer's work on Zapruder film alteration, for example. or Lifton's work on body alteration. 

[...]

---------------

I'm sure David Mantik MD, PhD. will appreciate those comments, after all he's probably spent more time at NARA studying and handling autopsy [medical] related evidence than anyone in the United States, I believe he's contributed to 3 of Jim Fetzer's books -- As to work on the Z-film film, well Mantik also holds a PhD in Physics and certainly can comment on the Z-film -- I await your credentials regarding film printing and film composition and forensics...

As a wanna-be-writer dealing with JFK Assassination material, commenting about Zapruder Film in particular, I'm sure you can debate the pluses and minuses of optical film printing, in relationship to said film, YES?

David Lifton? Well he's a past NYT best selling author, Pat. Not a wanna-be-writer... in 2 months or so, you'll be glad to know, the 2003 Univ. of Minn Synposium on the Zapruder Film will be available on DVD and/or videotape -- Mantik, Costella, Fetzer [all three Phd's] Lifton, White and yours truly FULL presentations are covered. Stay tuned!

So, BS aside, I await your professional critique regarding Zapruder film alteration...

You never know who reads these threads, Pat! You never know!

DHealy 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry if I offended you, David, by using the term b.s. I believe both Mantik and Fetzer are well-intentioned and I would not want any discussion about them to drift into the nastiness of the Thompson/Fetzer feud of a few years ago.

You haven't offended ME! Having been in the middle of those debates a few years back, I see them a bit differently than maybe you or others around here. I see them as being spirited -- disagreement from 2 titanic egos, a prerequisite for authorship regarding controversial subject matter, between them, what? 20+ books published? The majority by-the-way by Fetzer

I do take issue with a number of your comments. I disagree that Mantik's visits to NARA somehow make him THE authority. Your suggestion of this is self-contradictory, since you believe that the autopsy doctors, who saw the actual body, and the HSCA, which spent months discussing the wounds and exaiming the photos, were both wrong.

dgh01: are you ALSO suggesting David Mantik is NOT a MD, whom also holds a PhD. in Physics? Whom has studied on quite a few occasions the very evidence discussed, in person at NARA. The X-Rays and JFK's clothing in particular?

If you wish to worship at the cult of expertise--which Thompson complains about and which even an expert like Cyril Wecht agrees is dangerous--then you have to side with all the government "experts" as well.

dgh01: ahh, let's get Gary Mack at the head of THAT list -- roflmao -- the Tinkster complains about a lot of crap, especially when it comes to rocking the Z-film boat -- not the least is the 'cult' of expertise. I do believe you can quote Tink as saying, when viewing the Z-film wayback when, when he was hired by LIFE Magazine "... the Zapruder film is the truth..." May of been Lifton a few years ago, during the UofMinn Symposium on the Z-film who said Tink said that...

ALL past "EXPERTS" that entered this investigation prior to 10 years ago and make their opinions known in the media should be out on the collective asses

And many of them are as you know, dead wrong. Unless you are going to somehow show how Baden, Guinn, and Canning are all in agreement with Mantik, then your whole "expert" argument is proven fallacious.

I'm not presenting a argument for or against experts, based on my experience regarding this "expert nonsense, all the above experts certainly have agendas...

Please read my seminar and compare it to Dr. Mantik's; while he has the advantage in experience, most will almost certainly agree mine has the advantage on sound reasoning.

And your argument about Lifton is equally weak. While I respect Lifton's devotion I disagree with many of his conclusions. One has to wonder, for instance, why he excludes the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza from his theory of alteration.

dgh01: Lifton "devotion" is not in question here -- being published was? [/b]

After all, since they all seemed to think the large wound was on the top or side of JFK's head, then that would mean the wound was changed en route to Parkland, only to be changed back on Air Force One on the way to Bethesda. And this is twice as wild a story.

So what if he sold a bunch of books? The Warren Report sold more than Accessories After the Fact, and which one has more credibility?

I suggest you restrain yourself from attacking myself and others on the basis of our "wanna-be" status.

dgh01: then I suggest you remove it from your 'forum' signature block...

If you read my seminar, you'll see that I believe the suggestion of alteration in the autopsy photos and the Zapruder film only has merit if the photos and film do indeed show evidence for a lone-nut scenario, and I believe they indicate convincingly that Kennedy himself was shot three times, making a conclusion of conspiracy almost inevitable. Please read my seminar and tell me where I'm wrong.

dgh01: 3 times? Amazing -- I think David Mantik believes the same thing, and he leans towards film alteration, both motion type film AND X-Rays, imagine that...

Argue that the photos and Zapruder film PROVE the lone nut theory, and then we'll talk.

dgh01: thanks for the warning -- we've nothing to talk about, guess you haven't read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax -- Again why don't you remove that 'wanna be writer' thingy from your SIG block

Pat wrote:

[...]

I agree with you that there's an awful lot of bs on this Forum and within the research community--Fetzer's work on Zapruder film alteration, for example. or Lifton's work on body alteration.

[...]

---------------

I'm sure David Mantik MD, PhD. will appreciate those comments, after all he's probably spent more time at NARA studying and handling autopsy [medical] related evidence than anyone in the United States, I believe he's contributed to 3 of Jim Fetzer's books -- As to work on the Z-film film, well Mantik also holds a PhD in Physics and certainly can comment on the Z-film -- I await your credentials regarding film printing and film composition and forensics...

As a wanna-be-writer dealing with JFK Assassination material, commenting about Zapruder Film in particular, I'm sure you can debate the pluses and minuses of optical film printing, in relationship to said film, YES?

David Lifton? Well he's a past NYT best selling author, Pat. Not a wanna-be-writer... in 2 months or so, you'll be glad to know, the 2003 Univ. of Minn Synposium on the Zapruder Film will be available on DVD and/or videotape -- Mantik, Costella, Fetzer [all three Phd's] Lifton, White and yours truly FULL presentations are covered. Stay tuned!

So, BS aside, I await your professional critique regarding Zapruder film alteration...

You never know who reads these threads, Pat! You never know!

DHealy

A welcome addition, welcome Bob...

David Healy

I am currently employed as an investigator for a large corporation in Florida that does background and employment checks. Prior to that I spent almost twenty years in the computer business and owned my own store in New Mexico, for about twelve years.

My interest in the JFK case has existed since 1963, but it was in 1995 that I decided to try to find an accurate and objective methodology to resolve the conspiracy question once and for all. The results of my study are detailed in the lead article at my website, which has been endorsed and recommended by the History Channel.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Marcel penned:

Hi!

My Website update is almost finished!

Several new pages were added and old pages updated.

__________________

Congratulations Marcel -- keep up the good work!

David G. Healy

Lamsom dronned ON:

Duly noted. As is your ignorance on the subject matter. Believe as you wish as is your right. It speaks volumes and it will be reflected in future readings of your posts.

how kind of you to allow others to believe as they wish, what nonsense, rofl!

I"m sure it will be duly noted by other on this forum as well.

education and varied historical viewpoint is a plain pain in the butt, makes for good conversation though...

Why not detail exactly why you believe your summary has yet to be addressed?

Your vague posts show nothing of substance while your points have been rebutted in detail. Do it point by point.

here we go, AGAIN -- telling those you disagree with WHAT to do <sigh>, didn't you get thrown off of another board for that, or was that Tink Thompson? Maybe Bill Miller there were so many back back then, one tends to forget the names...

Still after many chances you give us only bluster. So much for intellectual honesty.

speaking of intellectual and PROFESSIONAL HONESTY, have you EVER been paid by NASA for any contracted photo work or freelance television work -- I have!

Beep beep beep...that the steamroller backing up your way.....

thats Sputnik, children will be children, sigh! Wanna buy a CD with a Moorman5.tiff on it, worthless today as it was a few years ago, is she or is she not... roflmao

you the only one around here exempt from posting a likeness of yourself, just curious?

Tsk-Tsk...

So much time and energy wasted by, quote "photo researchers" un-quote, disproving what some consider valid photo research. Jack must be making someone out there very nervous to be attracting this kind of attention.

Considering the sources of "preservation of history" adherents located on the this site, of course no one really believes that lie anymore...

Pound away, lad's, I for one enjoy seeing your quick retorts -- hang in the Jack, the dolts will disappear back to wenst they came...

David Healy

walled garden... you need to get out of that mosquito invested part of the country you live in....

To double check, this CraigL., the wannabe photog -- that darkroom denzin, that can't quite remember anything about optical film printing -- roflmfao? This the same guy?

If so, I heard the Tinkster is gonna be back east in a few weeks, Carig ole boy - you gonna be carrying his jacket, maybe fetching a waterbottle every now and then.... wouldn't want to see your hero left unattended, now would we?

rofl.....

If the elevator was/were parked on the fifth floor, that means anyone that repelled down the shaft had to enter the shaft on the 4th floor.

David Healy

Evan Burton wrote:

[...]

If you want to believe Jack, then go right ahead. You'll be 'worshipping' a 'false idol'.

I will, however, continue to correct Jack's errors or offer alternative explanations to ensure those with open minds can decide for themselves without having to accept simply one person's viewpoint.

_______________

False idol? I say that's a bit over the top -- What you apparently don't understand is: NASA and the Moon Landing were the sacred cow! No one questioned the landing credibility, then -- they're questioned now. Photo research in the JFK Assassination has shown, what some may lay a pretty good case for; lie after lie after lie, for whatever reason. Then Vietnam, lie after lie after lie. You suspected no one would take a peek as to what is under the covers regarding NASA's photo's?

Why on earth (pardon the pun) would NASA want to fabricate imagery? Interesting question which leads to interesting scenarios - mostly dealing with the Russians. If perpetrated, some, I'd agree were probably necessary. The question leads to: if it was necessary to alter or create imagery to advance USofA's position in the space race, why not admit it, NOW! What the hell is the big deal?

Jack White has raised valid questions regarding NASA moon photos -- deal with it. Raising the spector of worshipping 'false idol' is nonsense...

David Healy

So, .John found his way here. Why'd it take this long?

David Healy

Lee penned

[...]

Can I get any original source material to create my own digital scans at 1mb+ per frame, in order to more fully bring to light these men, who have been hidden? No.

[...]

____________

Best I can do is direct you to Jim Fetzer's site where you can access John Costella's MPI enhanced Zapruder film frames. 1000x800 pixels each, I believe...

www.assassinationscience.com -- pretty sure thats correct

David Healy

Shanet wrote:

So someone edited out the missing portion and made a spliceless splice,

which means a false master print --- read the various opinions, they range from

TOTAL FAKE to INNOCENT HOME MOVIE.

I am concerned about the letters on the margin, this is evidence of tampering that is not visible when the movie is screened, only when the full frames are inspected.

[...]

___________

The discussed area is called the "sprocket hole area"...

Much work has been done is this area, if you'd like, I can supply a few websites that will define the 8mm edge markings. KODAK website has the definitions available, too.

I spoke with Roland Zavada of HSCA fame regarding film edge printing, he confirmed to me, over the phone; Kodak double 8mm unsplit may be manufactured without edge markings... take that where you'd like!

Over exposure on first frames is a "gate issue - light leakage" with the B&H camera, see the Zavada Report. I don't have a url handy, it is however, all over the internet...

David Healy

Tim G posted:

[...]

I have posted information that is strongly suggestion of Cuban involvement in the assassination.

[...]

Having followed this thread from the inception, gotta tell ya, sounds like pure speculation! Far cry from "proof"...

David Healy

Steve wrote:

Ah.

If I remember right, it's against their forum rules to post anything said there anywhere else.

Too bad.

Steve Thomas

________________

The JFK Research forum rules and reg's are posted clearly for member review, if there's ANY doubt what one can or can not do regarding other peoples POSTINGS, and or copying and pasting posts elsewhere, its made abundantly clear...

Duncan,

A small suggestion: please post a small bkgd photo (edge to edge top to bottom) in this case the Moorman 5 Polaroid, including a small box in same depicting the area of your study. I'm pretty familiar with the Moorman 5 photo and I have a difficult time understanding and orienting myself as to the contents of your latest image...

I admit not having understanding as to limitations for photos/attachments for this forum.

Again, just a suggestion...

David Healy