David G. Healy

BM continued: It's really the only choice because when one guy says his "other film" showed a limo stopped for as much as 4 seconds and another guy says his "other film" showed the limo only pausing for a half of a second or one guy says the limo in his "other film" ran over the north curb of Elm Street or another guys says his "other film" showed JFK being shot all to hell as the car rounds the corner onto Elm Street, they obviously are seeing different films and at the very least they all are recreations for there can be only "ONE" other film if one ever existed. Run that by the Bay Area Video people and see if they do not agree. dgh01: mid 70's, mostly in b&w, campy canards -- pure and simple! Reminds me of many queries months ago about a certain image of the assassination from a different camera perspective, a still frame pulled from Stone's Elm Street sequence in JFK BTW - do you have any JFK assassination related facts you'd like to share with this forum or are you still keeping them all to yourself? dgh01: - rumor has it something is in the wind, stay tuned -- Little bit of research should fill you in on just what BVAC is, they've come a long way...

[...] http://www.icp.org/exhibitions/ant_farm/introduction.html http://www.bavc.org/meet/news/articles/restoring.htm Those who claim to have seen a "different" film saw only a fake version of the assassination and couldn't tell the difference. It can be the only logical reason for their describing different events in each. [...] Amazing, you have no clue as to what film they saw, yet, you claim to know what they saw -- thanks for the unrelated nonsense, btw, would you like a founding members email address from BVAC [bayArea Video Coalition]. Just post your request right here, I'm sure it'll be read.... roflmfao...

BM went on....: 'Ways to say things'? ... I have heard the alterationist on that site use the "F" word in their replies. Believe what you want - I denied it when others told me what to expect from that forum and I was proven wrong. Larry Peters ... [...] Larry Peters? roflmao! Now, that ghost does indeed, get around. And here all along I thought Larry Peters was, you... Someone actually wrote the "F" word? On a internet, private forum! Heavens to betsy! Your sensabilities are duly noted, now if you could only channel some of those sensebilities toward finding those who perpetrated the murder of JFK, we'd be a lot better off..... The "F" word, imagine that, and adults no-less.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shanet wrote: Duncan McRae has made a very serious claim, one I have heard before. [...] Can anyone vouch for this? Has anyone seen this Dealey "Master Film" ? Can anyone support this or shed light on this? Theory and Speculation is welcome... Thanks, Shanet [Rather than call it the generic "other" film, easily confused with NIX or MUCHMORE I call it the "Master Film"] _______________ Covered pretty much in Jim Fetzer's HOAX... RDellaRosa comments in HOAX about the "other film" he, as well as others have seen. Including one person [from Europe] that has posted to this forum in the past. His post were under another topic. Having a background in special effects compositing and matting techniques in both film and electroinc media, its pretty easy to speculate how alteration to the Z-film could of happened. It's not a question of; was it possible -- was the know how, manpower, technology available? Of course it was -- it available years prior to the assassination. The black art of optical film printing [and all it entails] became a known commodity during WW2... Washington turned to Hollywood for ALL the talents resident there in support of the WAR effort [which all of us Americans, amongst others,should be thankful for] Those photo researchers that have seriously broached the film alteration subject - find one area of question that needs more clarification: was the time avaialble to perform alteration? Coupled with that simple question, I've couched another: when did Shanneyfelt of the FBI give the actual Z-film frame, numbers? Another perplexing question has risen in the past few years: no one can attest too, or verify, that the sitting members [not aides or staff] of the Warren Commission ever saw the camera original Z-film... Ask your self this: following the assassination, the Secret Service and the FBI conducted their investigations in Dealey Plaza, why, during those investigations did they [sS, FBI] conclude the notorious headshot [Z-313] happend further down Elm St., approximately the concrete stairs ascending the Grassy Knoll (the area where we see Z-358 - today) ... Confusing investigation details, coupled with the FINAL WC report lead to big, BIG questions... then we can get to; WHY was it deemed necessary to alter the film, in the first place! Welcome to the can of worms, Shanet. I wish you well! David Healy

BM dronned on: Who questioned Zapruder and Sitzman's ID other than those select few who think every photo and film is altered in some way when it doesn't show what they want it too. dgh03: if your quoting me, show me and all the rest of us the cite, please. Otherwise stop the grandstanding -- Only goes to show what happens when wanna be researchers meet up with those that have been around the block for a bit.... you know its okay to say you don't know how ANY alteration might have occured to the Z-film camera original. Those same individuals were posting on the looney forum one time about how Zapruder could not have shot his film because he had on glasses and their thinking was that no one films with a movie camera with glasses on. dgh03: And you won what award? One would think you'd of made a comparison of all the pertinent imagery.... just can't do it, can you? Back to that nasty old Moorman5 and Z-film issue, isn't it I have seen several photos showing people filming through a camera lens while wearing glasses. Kennedy Aide Dave Powers is one of them. A photo of him filming with his camera while wearing glasses can be seen in Trask book "The Pictures of the Pain". dgh03: and this proves what? Isn't it interesting that not one single witness who was in and around the knoll has ever said that the man who was all over the TV Networks talking about a film he shot from atop of the pedestal during the assassination was not the man they saw. dgh03: were they asked? I believe the Hester's are still alive - see if they will tell you if it was Zapruder and Sitzman they saw that day and spent about 10 minutes with them immediately following the assassination or would that not be productive for you to do at this time. dgh03: tell you what, guy -- you set up the interview, you ask the questions [on camera] I'll record it for posterity AND later use. Course you'll have to ask a few questions I provide and of course I'll be there. You can eveen bring your phantom partner from the UK-Scotland? That's the one thing about a hoaxers argument is that they depend on 'not gathering' all the facts so they can make their suspicions seem valid. dgh03: valid enough for you Lone Neuters to continually find the time to criticize and have been doing so for years It is so important to them that they will purposely avoid seeking out the right people and asking the right questions so to keep fueling their position on a particular matter. dgh03: no that's downright envy there folks -- you keep walking into right crosses when no one even throws them -- roflmao! PS Someone once asked; what has BM done/accomplished in advancing the DP film issue(s)? I've kept my water on this for a few years now, no longer! I can only say, nothing! That, in and of itself, speaks "volumes". You taking that job?

BM dronned on: Who questioned Zapruder and Sitzman's ID other than those select few who think every photo and film is altered in some way when it doesn't show what they want it too. dgh03: if your quoting me, show me and all the rest of us the cite, please. Otherwise stop the grandstanding -- Only goes to show what happens when wanna be researchers meet up with those that have been around the block for a bit.... you know its okay to say you don't know how ANY alteration might have occured to the Z-film camera original. Those same individuals were posting on the looney forum one time about how Zapruder could not have shot his film because he had on glasses and their thinking was that no one films with a movie camera with glasses on. dgh03: And you won what award? One would think you'd of made a comparison of all the pertinent imagery.... just can't do it, can you? Back to that nasty old Moorman5 and Z-film issue, isn't it I have seen several photos showing people filming through a camera lens while wearing glasses. Kennedy Aide Dave Powers is one of them. A photo of him filming with his camera while wearing glasses can be seen in Trask book "The Pictures of the Pain". dgh03: and this proves what? Isn't it interesting that not one single witness who was in and around the knoll has ever said that the man who was all over the TV Networks talking about a film he shot from atop of the pedestal during the assassination was not the man they saw. dgh03: were they asked? I believe the Hester's are still alive - see if they will tell you if it was Zapruder and Sitzman they saw that day and spent about 10 minutes with them immediately following the assassination or would that not be productive for you to do at this time. dgh03: tell you what, guy -- you set up the interview, you ask the questions [on camera] I'll record it for posterity AND later use. Course you'll have to ask a few questions I provide and of course I'll be there. You can eveen bring your phantom partner from the UK-Scotland? That's the one thing about a hoaxers argument is that they depend on 'not gathering' all the facts so they can make their suspicions seem valid. dgh03: valid enough for you Lone Neuters to continually find the time to criticize and have been doing so for years It is so important to them that they will purposely avoid seeking out the right people and asking the right questions so to keep fueling their position on a particular matter. dgh03: no that's downright envy there folks -- you keep walking into right crosses when no one even throws them -- roflmao! PS Someone once aske;, what has BM done/accomplished in advancing the DP film issue(s). I've kept my water on this for a few years now, no longer!I can only say, nothing! That, in and of itself, speaks "volumes". You taking that job?

dgh01: read my lips, are you telling us, you, BMiller can clearly, without hesitation identify AZapruder and MSitzman as the people in ANY DP film or photo? Forget the hearsay for a change -- makes no difference whether its in Groden's book or not Sure I can and so could you if you did your homework. Not only is Sitzman in the clip I posted, but her footage is on the tail end of Zapruder's home movies. Now how many people do you were in that area wearing a dress like Sitzman's and a black scarf? Better yet, when did you or anyone else from the looney forum ever try and contact either of the Hester's to varify that it was Sitzman and Zapruder they had seen on the pedestal and/or talked to in the shelter immediately following the assassination? dgh02: why? When the Zfilm is entered into evidence [if it gets to court], both sides will have a say, yes? Your not of the school; the Z-film will pass muster unchallenged are you? Noticed you can't or won't say where the alledged camera original 'A side' of the Zfilm currently is, I'm a nice guy, I'll give you another 24 hours to contact Gary and ask 'em.... I'm guessing that no one from the looney forum has ever done it because it would crush their dreams of being able to raise doubts about it actually being Zapruder and Sitzman. dgh02: looney? Their ID has been questioned for years and years, particularly ole Abe, -- only newbies are in that state of denial... Course you could clarify a lot right here, have you ever seen a un-slit, alledged Z-film camera original optical print? If you haven't, gonna be pretty tough to make a case that the Sitzman "A" side your referring too, came from the 11/22/63 AZap film. Personally, I think Gary's correct, when he says; "the Zapruder film will NEVER see the inside of a courtroom". Pisses a few of us off when we hear something like that, you Bill are just the side show! How's it feel to be used? BTW - I never knew that a film or a photo is copnsidered hearsay. I just got out of a two week trial that was full of hearsay if that was the case. ahh, justice denied ANOTHER American, GOD help 'em LOL -- You can be sitting on the US Supreme Court for all I know, doesn't change a thing in the above. Also, I have a bumb leg as well. I just wanted to see if you were silly enough to confirm who I thought it was. Thanks! dgh02: confirm WHAT? That your biased? F L A S H -- Could of been any number of folks, the forum had a couple thousand members viewing when you got carried away

Willie said: David - If you just spent a fraction of the time cross referencing the assassination images as you do trolling this site in hopes of showing everyone how little you know about the assassination, then you could have prevented making such a silly comment. Before Zapruder filmed the lead cycles coming onto Elm Street he had filmed Sitzman standing next to the Hester's. Sitzman is wearing a dress and a black scarf over her head. That scarf is visible in Moorman's photo. dgh01: now don't go getting testy, now. Surely you can point us to the proof that the imagery you depend upon here was filmed Nov. 22nd, by the way; where oh where is this ghostly imagery of Sitzman located, archived? Patsy Pascall filmed Sitzman and Zapruder getting off the pedestal. That black scarf and dress are also visible in the Willis photo. I believe Altgens 8 shows both Sitzman and Zapruder from the rear as they are next to pedestal after having just dismounted from it. dgh01: read my lips, are you telling us, you, BMiller can clearly, without hesitation identify AZapruder and MSitzman as the people in ANY DP film or photo? Forget the hearsay for a change -AND- is that the same shelter where YOU, you Bill Miller can't see a camera on a tripod, yet you can clearly identify a women getting off the pedestal? Amazing, simple amazing. On page 47 of Groden's book "TKOAP" we can see where Sitzman in her black scarf with purse in hand is just starting to turn to go into the shelter where she, Zapruder and both Hester's conversed after the shooting. dgh01: read my lips, are you telling us, you, BMiller can clearly, without hesitation identify AZapruder and MSitzman as the people in ANY DP film or photo? Forget the hearsay for a change -- makes no difference whether its in Groden's book or not Was this enough or do you need to hear more! dgh01: see above - sell it to your groupies, those in the know, ain't buy'n.... Yeh - I think that I know who the gimp is that continues to misstate what I said so many years ago. dgh01:"gimp"? give you enough rope, you'll gladly step of the side of the cliff, have you NO shame picking on "cripples" now! roflmfao!

BM moaned on: [...] Maybe someone should stop and think why no one over the past 40 years has said Sitzman was filming the motorcade as it drove by her position until Duncan came up with such a ridiculous image. ______________ All the above from someone that can't point to ONE identifying mark in Moorman 5 that prove Marilyn Sitzman and Abraham Zapruder are the two folks standing upon the pedestal. ahh, the Moorman5 -- Your achilles heel. For all anyone can tell, the guy who appears to be wearing a suit might be taking a drink from a thermos By the way -- I hereby withdraw your Adobe Photoshop [Div.] employment referral. I was reminded last night [from a fan of yours] one of your comments regarding: what could be seen [by uprezzing photos] in certain trees around DP... tsk-tsk How you ID someones hand, when you can't even see features on a FACE? Your photo analysis powers are 'simply' astounding ROFLMAO! David Healy

Lee wrote: Why don't you afford me the professional courtesy of waiting until I'm finished in uploading at least some of the various photos I have prepared before damming the entire case as preposterous? I am still unable to upload files. ____________ Simple, he can't help himself... David

BM penned: Sure I'll explain it - try and take a photo from atop the pedestal and another photo standing next to it and attempt to create an overlay. Every photo or artist drawing works from a vanishing point. Once you choose another film location - the angles to the vanishing point changes and the things within the field of view do as well. Take Moorman's photo #5 of the knoll for instance. The crossbar of the limo - the seat tops - the hand holds all are in line with a vanishing point that keeps everything in perspective. [...] _______________ Gonna have to do better than THAT, young man -- might want to sell your revelations to film editors in a industry making a torrid living altering reality as we know it, for years and years and YEARS... and I'm not speaking of cartoon cell animators, they live in fantasyland. However, some film printing techniques even apply in their work, wayback when... AGAIN, for those participating in this thread that CAN'T read -- film shot from the EXACT same spot on the Zapruder pedestal, with LIKE camera, by AZapruder either knowingly or unknowingly -- additional footage included in the "alledged" Zapruder film, perhaps? VANISHING points WELL intact. Your so EASY! How'm I doing, champ? Need a quote from; The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography -by Raymond Fielding, 1965, Lib. of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116 reprinted in 1968. Re-issued and updated, late 80's, on how you merge this film sources, optically? Some have said the guy, Fielding, still teaches in Florida, give him a call... I noticed you avoided the SMPE comments like the plague? Why is that? Why would anyone fear, the FACTS, facts about film matting techniques? As for other comments regarding where I call my "internet home" re: Zapruder film discussion. Its not unknown, a few original posters on that particular board were successful exposing LN'ers that pose as CT'ers, most before my time. During my time there, I fondly refer to the current crop as the "preservers of unknown history", some paid most unpaid... Of no real interest to me, really - just more disinformation for the uninitiated...

BM wrote: [...] Then there is this talk about films being shot from other locations and then bled into the Zapruder film. Doing such a project is an impossible task. The ability to line up obstacles becomes nonexistant. Anyone who says that someone could film at one spot in the plaza and somehow think they get all the things in their photo to match with a film from another location have not actually tried to do it. The change in perspective between locations would be quite noticible even to the untrained eye. __________________ We've waited for what 3-4 years now - for 'trained eyes' to assemble a comparison of the "SEAMLESS DP films". No sense in getting to the bottomline, right? roflmao! By-the-way, you say above; "change in perspective". Would you care to elaborate? I don't recall serious film alteration researchers [that I've spoken with anyway] saying definitively; films shot from various locations in and around DP make up a new and improved Zapruder film. The reality is: one would need the alledged 'camera original' Z film itself [if your in a tight spot], and maybe a few seconds of additional double 8mm film shot from the Zapruder or Zapruder like camera. Shot from the same pedestal, of course - seconds before the motrorcade wandered into the kill zone. This is NOT rocket science, not even close... Pretty easy -- as any optical film printer could tell you, especially those in the know of film printing techniques that were avaiable, and practiced in 1963. All sorts of SMPE [society of Motion Picure Engineers] and SMPTE [society of Motion Picure & Television Engineers] **published** references for same, some in camera film special effects technique references dated to 1915. 1915 was SMPE's inception, their first order of business was to set 35mm film specifications... Toil on Mr. Forman - tis what "research" is all about...

TG wrote: Of minor interest is a column by society columnist Dominick Dunne in the latest issue of Vanity Fair. He discusses Robert Maheu, who, as we all know, recruited the Mafia to kill Castro on behalf of the CIA. He also discusses Phyllis McGuire, former mistress of Chicago don Sam Giancana. Both Maheu and McGuire are living in Vegas. Maheu's wife of many, many years died last year. _______________ Maheu has lived in Las Vegas for many, many years. He' appeared in various TV documentaries about both Howard and his relatonship with Las Veges in general, gambling interests, specifically -- Travel Channel, History Channel, etc, have aired these programs during the past 8 years, multiple times. I doubt his address is listed - he certainly hasn't hid... None of these folks hide, IF the price is right! David Healy

BM wrote: Yes - I implied that these men may be detectives from the Homicide division. They certainly seem to be buying their hats at the same store. Many people in the plaza that day had on coats or were carrying them, especially rain coats. Most professionals don't like to get their suit's wet, so they carry a light coat to put on in the event it starts to rain. That is not to say that this is the case here, but I would bet that even Homicide detectives wore coats/rain coats at times. So considering that it was raining earlier and it had just started to clear before the motorcade started, I imagine that it is possible that some of these men still had their coats with them at the time of the shooting. ____________ Imagine = proof/fact? Not to worry, I won't quote you from the past -- Amazing Bill, simply amazing - this revelation sheds new light on the case you know 'everything' about -- truck on fellow traveler, truck on!

BM penned mightly: Another typical reply from someone who has nothing else to offer. You are another one who has little knowledge of the photographical record and from the past postings you have made on this forum - you know little else about the assassination as well. _________________ wow -- with that kind of response, maybe I was wrong passing the rumor. Then again, maybe not!

BM wrote: The 'some of us' you speak of are of little importance for they are not that knowledgeable about the photographical record IMO. [...] ROFLMAO! When are you going to work for the 6th Floor Mausoleum? Enquiring minds are asking that question... Apparently, your 'heir apparent' - there are vacancies you know!

Ron penned: [...] Indeed there's one thing I'm almost sure of: If Castro had been included on the Warren Commission, this case could have been solved long ago. Ron ___________________ Brilliant Ron! What he, Castro knows may be the ONLY reason he's still alive, today!

William wrote: [...] but others murders. But then came the fingerprint... [...] ----------------- Hey William, Nice to see you still posting on the subject -- Most of us from RichD's JFK Research forum send a big "hello" -- How is the book doing? Thought I'd let you know, a documentary aired last night in the US regarding the reliability of finger prints and finger printing in general, and the technology, specifically. 'Specifically', how the FBI has bungled case after case that relied on the use of IDing perps through "finger prints". Worse, when NO conclusive or defining points can be agreed upon [amongst experts] the FBI refuses to concede they made mistakes ... Apparently there is NO criteria, or education track one can determine as in, who is a *expert* for this field -- if one claims they're an expert in fingerprint identification technology, evidently they are! Same works for the FBI, however -- time after time after time when the FBI sits for the prosecution, their work is seldom challenged, right or WRONG... The documentary finding WRONG much more than a seasoned investigative organization show... I think the road to ID'ing anyone through the use of finger printing is going to get much tougher from here on out! I forgot the name of the show, and the cable network carrier that hosted last night, Jan 13th, sometime between 2000 - 2200hrs Pacific Standard Time Unfortunately the FBI did not comment, nor the courts that intervened and freed the 'evidently', NOT guilty from prison... David Healy

AND nearly as long, the Conspiracy side of the story... how's that for staying power?

quote=Paul Troglia,Jan 8 2005, 04:53 PM Lee Harvey Oswald did it. He did it alone. There are no doubles. no grassy knoll shooters, no star chamber, nothing. A District Attorney with a degree from Lawyers-R-Us could have proved him guilty in 5 minutes. A sampling of the facts: the bullets came from his gun to the exclusion of all others;his fingerprints were on the gun found in the TSBD;he ran away from the scene of the crime;he was seen in the 6th floor window with the rifle;he went home and got a pistol after the assassination;he killed a cop who stopped him after the APB went out;he tried to kill the arresting officer in the theater but the gun jammed; he shot at Edwin Walkers house trying to kill him; he was a wife beater and on and on and on. [...] dgh01: Well, why thank you -- Maybe I'll ask John Simkin if we should close down this part of the Education forum. What with your above declaration and all, why bother with discussion, eh? ROFLMAO! David Healy

Excellent post, glad to see you still posting on the subject R-Charles. Many of us miss your posts' on JFKResearch Forum David Healy ------------------