David G. Healy

Bill,

Thank you. I have little interest in what Lifton might have to say about Z film alteration. l"Best Evidence" is great, if only it were 200 pages of the evidence, versus his personal 17- year- story, blow by blow.

I can see why Bob Groden would have been critical since he is the EXPERT on the Z film, not dr Fetser or David Lifton.

I propose a new rule: All responses have to be in complete sentences.

Dawn

==========

Are we to be impressed with your ego or just your wishfullness at being someone in the KNOW?

How's that for Kings English?

roflmao!

Thanks for this thread...

In short: there's a real shortage of new investigative ideas regarding the JFK Assassination. It seems a majority of, the 'so-called' ESTABLISHED reasearch community appears interested in, nothing more than furthering individual agendas...

Perhaps a forum of this type will bring forth, NEW and exciting avenues of approach regarding the subject, both in theory and evidence... To a certain degree, it already has. To the consternation of a few, I might add. Some, even members of this forum.....

Thanks for the good work --

David Healy

_____________________________________

What I Want for Christmas:

I want Tim Carroll to take all this insight, brilliance, superior writing and analytical skills and utilize these talents by writing a book. Stop wasting his valuable time arguing with people on the forum who he does not know and who do not know him. It's a drain of energy, mental and physical, that has no goal, at least that is how it appears to me.

TIM: Get back to where you were with your seminar, pick up where Oglesby left off. You are his literary "heir". Don't let this forum suck away that energy. Please.

Bob Groden is a hero. His sacrifices to this case are legendary. He has also had some serious physical problems that some of us are aware of.

I have known Bob since 1975; he needs no defense!!

He's a hero, period.

Case Closed.

dgh01: H A R D L Y, period !

Dawn Meredith

I will confess my ignorance. Can someone tell me what Pig on a Leash is?

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

see: The Great Zapruder Film Hoax -- Jim Fetzer latest amongst his JFK books, David Lifton's contribution in the book is: "Pig on a Leash"...

Shanet wrote:

I see that David Healey and Jack White agree with Costella and Fetzer:

the zapruder film as a special effects propaganda creation.

dgh01: other than the obvious, and our history of creating propoganda films dating back to WW2 -- what you see may not be correct. Who said I agree with with Dr. Fetzer and Costella? About anythiing

It's possible, but not probable, and who knows?

And no Jack, I am not unable to understand the pincushion effect.

dgh01: its a condition long known by professional cameramen and acutely known by those that do compositing, especially compositors where tolerences beyond 0.001 is unacceptable

But the degrees of difference in the uprights was not that compelling.

dgh01: see above

Dr. Wimp's analysis on CSPAN of why everyone bobbed forward in 313 area was, braking. JFK bobbed forward, then Kellerman and then the women all rocked forward.

dgh01: Dr. Wimp? Now that's new! braking - accelerating all come into play within a few frames in the alledged camera original.

Zapruder doesn't show me anything like the occipital right large lower head wound, so I am uninclined to believe the temple wound is unretouched.

It might just be a fake..........

dgh01: exactly, what got me started and I'm still there, primary reason forensic testing of the alledged camera original Zfilm is needed....

BTW, it's Healy not HEALEY -- wouldn't want Al the Cop thinking I'm not on the job...

David Healy

Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form. It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc. It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post.

dgh01: "less than convincing..." are you suggesting the 'physics' are incorrect, or just difficult to believe?

I reviewed the entire site carefully. While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence.

dgh01: What evidence might that be? Surely not Gary Mack, Tink Thompson told me so....?

This thread only makes sense if you have reqad the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect. I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.

dgh01: something is better than nothing, I suppose! There is something WRONG with the Z-film, if it's altered, the whole world has been lied too, WHY?

David Healy

Shanet

John wrote:

No. I do not have his contact details. There are lots of people I would like to invite. Caroline Hall mentioned yesterday that she met Anthony Summers recently. He is definitely someone I am interested in. I tried very hard to persuade G. Robert Blakey to join but he says he is trying to put the subject behind him.

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

One might get in touch with Gary Mack at the 6th Floor Museum -- I suspect he can reach out for Dr. Thompson at anytime... I haven't seen him post regarding JFK related subject matter since the Moorman on the Street/Grass Debate [circa. 11/03] -- also, he was one of the prime movers against Dr. Fetzer's Z-film HOAX book... as were quite a few last minute seminar, Education Forum new registrants... tsk-tsk.

David Healy

BillM wrote:

[...]

Offering information without references to it is little more than offering an opinion and everyone should always be skeptical of an opinion until there has been reasonable information offered to support it.

==========

Would the entire reference library from the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineering, dating back to 1915 suffice in demonstrating that optical film printing techniques existed in 1963, for that matter, WELL before 1963? A case can be made for alteration, till forensic testing is done, the Z-film will remain a dubious piece of evidence, nice show and tell, but those in the know, K N O W!

Why not run a roll of film through the actual B&H Double8mm camera? Roland Zavada wanted that very test, too.... No soap, so say's the 6th Floor Museum, wonder why?

One could cite volumes -- not to mention, show examples ...

dgh01: "buy it"? I suggest reading it! --- "read it himself"? ah, I wrote part of it!

David - it's bad enough you had to be shown in error once over this statement, but now twice in the same thread - you wrote in a previous post ....

dgh02: ME, error? ROFL, bad enough? what's bad enough? Not trying to divert attention to the message at hand are ya there, BM? Did YOU buy it, the book, right? Maybe BUY it and GOD forbid,read it, which I suggest YOU do, on numerous ocassion? Your not suggesting to the rest of this forum I'm a prevaricator, are you? As a certified 6th Floor Preserver of DP Film and Photo History advocate, one would think you'd not leave ALL DP graphics responsibility to Dale Myer!

Some of us are looking forward your input this week?

QUOTE

Buy the book, HOAX -- it's all in there.... Ever get that "seamless' DP film comparison done yet? What's it been now 3 years.....? What a farce the other side of this question is. Preservers of history, H O W L .... I think not!

Bill M and Officer Al wrote:

Sorry, but I and Bill live in the real world and understand how to challenge through cross examination. Many of you just spout off findings as you are used the workings of the WC and HSCA that did not allow cross challenging of evidence.

Healy has made enough replies on this forum to equal the text of one Commission volume,

dgh01: As any thinking person would; check my posting total here, how many have you posted here? I rest my case...

but has not cited enough evidence to fill one side of a packet of 'sweet n' low'.

dgh01: I'm the real deal BM, I do sugha!

He tells people to buy a book claiming the Zapruder film is a hoax when he has read it himself

dgh01: "buy it"? I suggest reading it! --- "read it himself"? ah, I wrote part of it!

and has since said that he has not seen anything that would prove the Zapruder film to be a hoax.

dgh01: ah. come on admit it -- its a tough pill to swallow, the Z-film might be altered, and a scientific case can be made for film alteration -- I suspect during the upcoming seminar on this forum, you and the rest of the gang will be confronted with that reality, AGAIN -- be brave

His only position it seems is that while he has seen nothing to show the Zapruder film to be altered - he has not seen anything that proves it is the camera original,

dgh01: only a hell of a lot of ducking, and a ton of contrary posting. ALL bemoaning none of the HOAX authors have a clue of what they're talking about, yet the amateurs ramble on...

thus it's not been proven to be unaltered.

dgh01: gonna have to run that one by me again, how do you prove a negative [pardon the pun], btw? even I can't do that.

That argument can be made for every photo or film taken in history and is a silly position to take.

dgh01: well, there's well documented ones housed at Kodak's photo museum in Rochester, NY facts being what they are, I discuss a few in HOAX, amazing what a little photo sleuthing can do, need the URL? Thanks for the opportunity to plug the book...

Bill M and Officer Al wrote:

Sorry, but I and Bill live in the real world and understand how to challenge through cross examination. Many of you just spout off findings as you are used the workings of the WC and HSCA that did not allow cross challenging of evidence.

dgh01: I deal't with Officer Al in a earlier post

Healy has made enough replies on this forum to equal the text of one Commission volume,

dgh01: As any thinking person would - check my post total here, how many for you? I rest my case...No, I won't bring up post totals elsewhere, thankfully for you!

but has not cited enough evidence to fill one side of a packet of 'sweet n' low'.

dgh01: I'm the real deal BM, I do sugha!

He tells people to buy a book claiming the Zapruder film is a hoax when he has read it himself

dgh01: "buy it"? I suggest read it! --- "read it himself"? ah, I wrote part of it!

and has since said that he has not seen anything that would prove the Zapruder film to be a hoax.

dgh01: ah. come on admit it -- its a tough pill to swallow, the Z-film might be altered, and a scientific case can be made for film alteration -- I suspect during the upcoming seminar on this forum, you and the rest of the gang will be confronted with that reality, AGAIN -- be brave

His only position it seems is that while he has seen nothing to show the Zapruder film to be altered - he has not seen anything that proves it is the camera original,

dgh01: only a hell of a lot of ducking, and a ton of contrary posting. ALL bemoaning, HOAX contributing authors haven't a clue what they're talking about, yet the amateurs rant, rave and ramble on...

thus it's not been proven to be unaltered.

dgh01: gonna have to run that one by me again, how do you prove a negative [pardon the pun], btw? even I can't do that.

That argument can be made for every photo or film taken in history and is a silly position to take.

dgh01: well there's a few well documented ones at Kodak's photo museum in Rochester, NY facts being what they are, I discuss a few in the book, thanks for the opportunity to plug the book...

Dawn,

I understand your displeasure with the in-fighting and I can sympathize with you on it and am guilty of it myself as much as anyone else. Professor Jim Fetzer and David Healey came on Lancer Forum a year or so ago to promote the new book and Bill challenged them on their findings of film alteration professionally and initially with respect. Fetzer hummed and hawed around and delayed responding and promised a response to the challenges that he never provided. Healey simply lashed out at Bill Miller and never addressed the issues.

dgh01: "lashed out?" evidently Carrier, you failed to see the URL's posted here on several ocassions that might give you pause. What you can read on those URL'S addressed every particle of debate regarding possible - Healy, and 'alteration', Costella's  scenarios

-- and for God sakes that's, H E A L Y for the 19th time, Carrier -- btw, I did not post during that pre 2003 Lancer debate conflagration, brought out ALL the disinfo specialists, though -- Dr. John Costella's work and contribution to HOAX remains "untouched"

Bill Miller and I have butted heads on numerous occasions, but I still respect him as much as I do any researcher out there. We get nasty with each other through personal e-mail now and try to keep it professional on open forums. Although I have disagreed with Bill on some key issues, I still respect his opinion and how he came to terms with his stance.

To term Bill an amatuer in photographic analysis is an example of the credibility of Healey

dgh01: Is he a Professional in this arena? Now that is news ! I heard he's a cartoonist... That's H E A L Y for the 20th time, Carrier -- so much for your credibility as a investigator tsk-tsk...

and his associates. If he can disprove Bill's challenges, then why doesn'the do so and instead of attacking the man?

dgh01: ah, challenges to opinions from someone with NO credibility in the motion grafics industry?  Based on amateur use of photo alteration/manipulation tools on imagery with NO published/documented provanence of imagery his ideas are based on? See how far that would get anyone in a US court of LAW? He can buy the book.

Stick with the cop stuff Al, your pretty good there -- your out of your league with this photo subject matter... just my opinion of course!

[/b]

I am well aware by now how to spell your name as it is presnet when I post replies. I add the "e" to bring out your best side, you just haven't figured that out yet.

dgh02: well thanks Al, you do read -- your not Irish Al, you can dispense with the feeble humor. And for the record, Al -- direct me to a URL or archive where I can see LANCER posts attributed to me, or by me during the Lancer - HOAX debate of Nov'03. I didn't post, my predetermined position during that fiasco, as a contributor to the book was, NOT to post. Sorry, no cigar, AL.

Cop Stuff? As a CSI, I have entered photos and films into evidence in trial against professional defense attorney's to depict the reality of a crime scene. I have shot crime scenes in pure darkness using a manually opened aperature and fill lighting by walking a strobe through it without overexposure in a block long crime scene. I do have a little background on photography and filming and can work magic that does not require alteration.

dgh02: Fill light, magic? come on Al, that one won't help your resume

Other than bringing up the "man in the back of the pick-up", "the Zapruder Sitzman waltz" and, well, I will leave it at that, I need not address amature standings in film altercation. I will stand by Bill Miller as he is objective from a basic standpoint and beyond.

dgh02: well, maybe in all the sleuthing and photography you've done in the past, you can tell us amateurs what **photo** and/or distinguishing marks **identify** Abraham Zapruder as ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER standing on the DP pedestal -- you know, a criminal court kinda question? Other than,

"...well, he's about the same height, or someone told me it was him..."

The basics are simple. How do you explain the confirmation on authenticity of the films you prescribe as being altered by way of other films and photos showing consistencies?

dgh02: great question, Al. BTW, who has authenticated any of these films? Can you tell us, who on the Warren Commission even SAW the camera original film? As to the simple amateur photo sleuthing stuff, Bill Miller said he was going to show just that, the seamlessness of ALL DP films, [that's a Dr. TinkThompson term btw]... about 3 maybe 4 years ago. Pretty simple process to do actually, wonder why he didn't? Maybe GaryM wouldn't let him have access to early generation films, perhaps. Or maybe he just CAN'T! Maybe you can give him a hand...?

You know which ones I am talking about as Bill has pounding it through on Lancer without response. These films and photos were released immediately without opportunity to intercept and alter.

dgh02: nonsense, the 'other' films aren't important at the moment, the camera original, or what passes as the camera original Z-film Al, and the Moorman5 thats what is important -- the rest are supporting cast members, a sideshow if you will -- let's go for the real enchilada

Sorry, but I and Bill live in the real world and understand how to challenge through cross examination. Many of you just spout off findings as you are used the workings of the WC and HSCA that did not allow cross challenging of evidence.

dgh02: I see --- pardon me, ROFL!

"Spout off findings," ah, those are published findings -- and research Officer Carrier, research, real world stuff -- seems to me, all I hear from the non-Z-film alteration camp-side of the photo/film analysis debate is, ENVY!

As to evidence; WHAT evidence? Is a trial underway? Research and Opinion, published in book form and archived... The *only* [my opinion of course] way the Z-film would be entered as criminal trial evidence as: "in the interest of history", whats that 'chain of evidence' deal? Now, if one wanted to do a little evidence gathering, how about forensic testing on a 2 frames of the alledged camera original Zapruder film, AND the 3 [minimum] 1st generation optical print

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dawn,

I understand your displeasure with the in-fighting and I can sympathize with you on it and am guilty of it myself as much as anyone else. Professor Jim Fetzer and David Healey came on Lancer Forum a year or so ago to promote the new book and Bill challenged them on their findings of film alteration professionally and initially with respect. Fetzer hummed and hawed around and delayed responding and promised a response to the challenges that he never provided. Healey simply lashed out at Bill Miller and never addressed the issues.

dgh01: "lashed out?" evidently Carrier, you failed to see the URL's posted here on several ocassions that might give you pause. What you can read on those URL'S addressed every particle of debate regarding possible - Healy, and 'alteration', Costella's  scenarios

-- and for God sakes that's, H E A L Y for the 19th time, Carrier -- btw, I did not post during that pre 2003 Lancer debate conflagration, brought out ALL the disinfo specialists, though -- Dr. John Costella's work and contribution to HOAX remains "untouched"

Bill Miller and I have butted heads on numerous occasions, but I still respect him as much as I do any researcher out there. We get nasty with each other through personal e-mail now and try to keep it professional on open forums. Although I have disagreed with Bill on some key issues, I still respect his opinion and how he came to terms with his stance.

To term Bill an amatuer in photographic analysis is an example of the credibility of Healey

dgh01: Is he a Professional in this arena? Now that is news ! I heard he's a cartoonist... That's H E A L Y for the 20th time, Carrier -- so much for your credibility as a investigator tsk-tsk...

and his associates. If he can disprove Bill's challenges, then why doesn'the do so and instead of attacking the man?

dgh01: ah, challenges to opinions from someone with NO credibility in the motion grafics industry?  Based on amateur use of photo alteration/manipulation tools on imagery with NO published/documented provanence of imagery his ideas are based on? See how far that would get anyone in a US court of LAW? He can buy the book.

Stick with the cop stuff Al, your pretty good there -- your out of your league with this photo subject matter... just my opinion of course!

[/b]

I am well aware by now how to spell your name as it is presnet when I post replies. I add the "e" to bring out your best side, you just haven't figured that out yet.

dgh02: well thanks Al, you do read -- your not Irish Al, you can dispense with the feeble humor. And for the record, Al -- direct me to a URL or archive where I can see LANCER posts attributed to me, or by me during the Lancer - HOAX debate of Nov'03. I didn't post, my predetermined position during that fiasco, as a contributor to the book was, NOT to post. Sorry, no cigar, AL.

Cop Stuff? As a CSI, I have entered photos and films into evidence in trial against professional defense attorney's to depict the reality of a crime scene. I have shot crime scenes in pure darkness using a manually opened aperature and fill lighting by walking a strobe through it without overexposure in a block long crime scene. I do have a little background on photography and filming and can work magic that does not require alteration.

dgh02: Fill light, magic? come on Al, that one won't help your resume

Other than bringing up the "man in the back of the pick-up", "the Zapruder Sitzman waltz" and, well, I will leave it at that, I need not address amature standings in film altercation. I will stand by Bill Miller as he is objective from a basic standpoint and beyond.

dgh02: well, maybe in all the sleuthing and photography you've done in the past, you can tell us amateurs what **photo** and/or distinguishing marks **identify** Abraham Zapruder as ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER standing on the DP pedestal -- you know, a criminal court kinda question? Other than,

"...well, he's about the same height, or someone told me it was him..."

The basics are simple. How do you explain the confirmation on authenticity of the films you prescribe as being altered by way of other films and photos showing consistencies?

dgh02: great question, Al. BTW, who has authenticated any of these films? Can you tell us, who on the Warren Commission even SAW the camera original film? As to the simple amateur photo sleuthing stuff, Bill Miller said he was going to show just that, the seamlessness of ALL DP films, [that's a Dr. TinkThompson term btw]... about 3 maybe 4 years ago. Pretty simple process to do actually, wonder why he didn't? Maybe GaryM wouldn't let him have access to early generation films, perhaps. Or maybe he just CAN'T! Maybe you can give him a hand...?[/b]

You know which ones I am talking about as Bill has pounding it through on Lancer without response. These films and photos were released immediately without opportunity to intercept and alter.

dgh02: nonsense, the 'other' films aren't important at the moment, the camera original, or what passes as the camera original Z-film Al, and the Moorman5 thats what is important -- the rest are supporting cast members, a sideshow if you will -- let's go for the real enchilada

Sorry, but I and Bill live in the real world and understand how to challenge through cross examination. Many of you just spout off findings as you are used the workings of the WC and HSCA that did not allow cross challenging of evidence.

dgh02: I see --- pardon me, ROFL!

"Spout off findings," ah, those are published findings -- and research Officer Carrier, research, real world stuff -- seems to me, all I hear from the non-Z-film alteration camp-side of the photo/film analysis debate is, ENVY!

As to evidence; WHAT evidence? Is a trial underway? Research and Opinion, published in book form and archived... Now, if one wanted to do a little evidence gathering, how about forensic testing on a 2 frames of the alledged camera original Zapruder film, AND the 3 [minimum] 1st generation optical print

The Guardian runs a Notes & Queries Column. Recently, someone asked the question: “Why do the directors in Hollywood find it virtually impossible to make a reasonable accurate historical film?” Anyone got any ideas?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Accurate in what way - overall content, accuracy in same, asthetics? For all practical purposes Hollyweird makes films that they feel will SELL tickets -- you want documentaries, take your best shot at art houses or local universities...

The 64,000 dollar question is: who say's those documentary film projects are accurate? Accurate compared to WHAT, the New York Times?

And "reasonable", hmmm.... well. look how reasonable people disagree on the Zapruder Film [the alteration/non-alteration debate] How many historical versions of history do we have, regarding the events of Nov 22nd 1963? That is *near* recent history, with photgraphic "evidence" to boot and we 'still', can't be sure it's accurate -- The problem grows expodentially as we go back in time.

Even " historical mavens, can't agree. Textbooks have various renditions of histororical events and folks expect Hopllyweird to clean up the mess? -- LOL what the hell are the crystal ball gazers wandering academia for? Is it ALL just opinion?

Like the JFK mess, the only thing we're sure of: he was shot in the back, the head by coward, left to die in the arms of his wife and the course of a country changed... That, friends and neighbors is what Hollyweird is/was made for -- enter stage left, Oliver Stone...

The US Government can't, or worse yet, WON'T figure it out, "we'll just leave it up to the story tellers..." The "historians", self proclaimed and otherwise - we're asleep at the wheel on this one, or feeding at the trough at public expense, and dare I say; PERIL!

David Healy

Dawn,

I understand your displeasure with the in-fighting and I can sympathize with you on it and am guilty of it myself as much as anyone else. Professor Jim Fetzer and David Healey came on Lancer Forum a year or so ago to promote the new book and Bill challenged them on their findings of film alteration professionally and initially with respect. Fetzer hummed and hawed around and delayed responding and promised a response to the challenges that he never provided. Healey simply lashed out at Bill Miller and never addressed the issues.

dgh01: "lashed out?" evidently Carrier, you failed to see the URL's posted here on several ocassions that might give you pause. What you can read on those URL'S addressed every particle of debate regarding possible - Healy, and 'alteration', Costella's  scenarios

-- and for God sakes that's, H E A L Y for the 19th time, Carrier -- btw, I did not post during that pre 2003 Lancer debate conflagration, brought out ALL the disinfo specialists, though -- Dr. John Costella's work and contribution to HOAX remains "untouched"

Bill Miller and I have butted heads on numerous occasions, but I still respect him as much as I do any researcher out there. We get nasty with each other through personal e-mail now and try to keep it professional on open forums. Although I have disagreed with Bill on some key issues, I still respect his opinion and how he came to terms with his stance.

To term Bill an amatuer in photographic analysis is an example of the credibility of Healey

dgh01: Is he a Professional in this arena? Now that is news ! I heard he's a cartoonist... That's H E A L Y for the 20th time, Carrier -- so much for your credibility as a investigator tsk-tsk...

and his associates. If he can disprove Bill's challenges, then why doesn'the do so and instead of attacking the man?

dgh01: ah, challenges to opinions from someone with NO credibility in the motion grafics industry?  Based on amateur use of photo alteration/manipulation tools on imagery with NO published/documented provanence of imagery his ideas are based on? See how far that would get anyone in a US court of LAW? He can buy the book.

Stick with the cop stuff Al, your pretty good there -- your out of your league with this photo subject matter... just my opinion of course!

[/b]

Al

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Forensic testing of the film, verifying [very simple process] the authenticity of any of these pieces of film, would move mountains for the non-alteration Z-film camp. But all we get is reguritated Dale Myers 3D version of 2D imagery, nonesense. Of which we'll be blessed with more in a few weeks time, AGAIN! Must be another anniversary...

When testing was done to the original Dillard negatives - they ended up be damaged. People, like yourself, have complained bitterly how the Zapruder film was allowed to be spliced in two separate places and now without offering any valid observation of something on the film not representing what actually occurred ... you want to risk destroying what's left of the camera original. You must be joking!

dgh01: If you don't know -OR- understand film forensic testing, might be a good idea, not-to-go-here

What's worse is that you don't see why anyone would be hesitant to risk further damage to that film. It's like with a missing person's case - you first have to show that someone is missing. You certainly don't just send the authorities out looking for someone without establishing a basis for the need to do so in the first place. That can be done by comparing the Zapruder film to the existing 'sideshow' images from other films and photos taken during the assassination. Many of us have done this and we cannot find any differences between them all. If you can find one, then let us know ... then I'll be pushing for an investigation, as well.

Below is what can happen when a photo or film has been scientifically tested.

dgh01: nice try, no banana!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David - As I recall ... the last time you offered an opinion about the Zapruder film you had said that you have not seen any proof that the Zfilm has been altered. Has that opinion changed lately?

dgh01: you went ahead an edited your original post -- so hear we go again--

I also find it somewhat odd that you mention the other film and photo evidence as a "sideshow". If one goes back into the alteration thread on this forum or looks at the Fetzer book that you like to push so often - it dealt with mostly "sideshow" material as you now call it.

dgh01: push? Never collected a dime...

While you never offered any data or evidence in the alteration thread on this forum, you certainly participated in it more times than one cares to count.

dgh01: evidence of alteration? Why would I post that? A simple scenario and explanation elludes you: IF the film was altered, here's how it COULD of been altered, that was the thesis for the HOAX chapter, right in the first page -- Have you actually READ the article? tsk-tsk! All other claims as to my pushing the alteration scenario, from your side of the fence are, quite simply BOGUS...

So apparently being a part of what you call a sideshow has not concerned you. I might also add that not once in your section of the 'Hoax' book did you mention that the other related materials in that book was part of any sideshow, yet on this forum that is how you refer to them. I might also add that two other films {the Nix and Muchmore films) captured the point in time that Moorman's #5 photo was taken, so are they not important as well.

dgh01: nice try, read above...

So please try to take one position or the other because things are starting to sound a bit confusing ... on one hand all the other photo and film evidence is a side show not worthy of consideration IYO, yet you tell people to buy 'Hoax" which is mostly nothing but claims using film captures and photos that you now say is nothing more than a sideshow. That cannot make any sense to someone following what you've said on this site.

dgh01: tell people to buy HOAX? no young Bill -- READ Hoax! Scientic evidence of chicanry, 2nd class propogandist have tried to debunk it, Dr. Costella's work stands.

I will say this ... In the event that you fall back on the side of thinking the Zapruder film is altered and you wish to address the evidence concerning the Zapruder film, please feel free to do so and do so specifically. If one only replies to such issues on a constant basis without offering any evidence in support of their position, then that only makes them a "Sideshow Bob" who is better known as being 'Crusty the Clowns' sidekick!

dgh01: and the attacks on Jack White continue, thank you Mr. Peter's!

As I recall ... the last time you offered an opinon about the Zapruder film you had said that you have not seen any proof that the film has been altered.

-----------

Last time? Everytime it comes up, it's my opinion. Never have touched, nor forensically tested any film!Maybe you have something more than opinion? Like, you've actually fornsically tested some of the film? If not, yours is just opinion, too. Don't you agree?

Your observant: no legit researcher has seen; touched; and completed forensic testing regarding the alledged camera original Z-film, nor has ANY institution. Let's also include, any of the 'alledged' original optical prints, of which there are 3, one of which is currently housed at the 6th Floor Museum [great Zapruder family tax break, yes? David Lifton did write about this in HOAX - the wild and wooley ways of Capitalism, dont ya just love it?].

Forensic testing of the film, verifying [a very simple process] the authenticity of any of these pieces of film, would move mountains for the non-alteration Z-film camp. But all we get is reguritated Dale Myers 3D version of 2D imagery, nonesense. Of which we'll be blessed with more in a few weeks time, AGAIN! Must be another anniversary...

Even Roland Zavada wanted forensic testing, why-o-why didn't Roland get his way?

John,

Points well taken. I hasten to add: when it comes to debate and/or discussion of ANY and I stress ANY, JFK related Dealey Plaza films, or photos -- here or at other forums, seminars, any venue for that matter -- its ALL opinion! Including mine, of which I'm on the published record with.

Declarations of 'certainty' frequently made regarding various motion/still images related to JFK's murder are common, complete with no image[ry] provenance, provided. Foolishness!

There are few competent [my opinion] photoanalysts here, and damn few that make their opinion known on the internet! Quite frankly, I know of ONE on this forum, that person does not and will not post, just monitor. Over the years many have claimed the phoptoanalyst mantle, very few have delivered *credible bonifides*, if ANY. The loudest have delivered NONE.

Quite frankly a few of us think the majority of debates regarding DP imagery, other than the Z-film and the Moorman5 photo is diversion - the only Nov 22nd '63 film of consequence is the Zapruder Film -- all the rest is *sideshow* fodder...

A Education Forum regarding the JFK Assassination is wonderful for the uninitiated, lest we all be reminded, murder is a very messy business...

Best regard's,

David Healy

Film/Video Special Effects

Compositing Specialist

Broadcast Consultant

Dawn wrote:

[...]

If you want to convince anyone there was not film alteration (and I don't even get involved in that argument as I think the issue of WHO KILLED JFK is the one we are here for) you truly would be more convincing if you used proper English.

[...]

dgh01: Contrary to public opinion, Ms. Dawn, I'm not in the business of convincing the general public, you or Mr. Miller-Peters of Z-film alteration. I'm public enemy number TEN [amongst excellent company, I might add] when it comes to the Preservers of History, or I should say preservers of slanted viewpoints of history regarding  events as they played out in Dallas Texas, Nov '63.

As to WHO killed JFK? When you find out, drop me a line, I've been at it for 35 years, not a clue -- just a fair conclusion that LHO wasn't the only dude in Dealey Plaza with a rifle, if in FACT he even touched a long rifle, that day...

I'm here for many reasons Ms. Dawn, not in the least is keeping an eye on the information [or disinformation and there's plenty of that here and other forums]  regarding the Zapruder film and "possible alteration of same".

If you want to beat a drum on the issue, send a email to the Sixth Floor Museum requesting forensics testing for the original optical print in their possesion...

As for my English, hey what can I say. It was good enough for Dr. Fetzer, good enough for here and certainly on the level of a Miller-Peters. Darn ole 4 year Jesuit schools -- don't teach you nuth'in, Im-a guess'in, I know, I know, must be that liberal media bias not to mention, George Bush who told me so... as to Miller-Peters, he can spin Adobe Photoshop tales ALL day, how do you spell, amateur...?

Have a nice stay at John Simkin's Education Forum, they've done a hell of a job, one of these day's I'm going to have a look around the other subject matter...

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

whoops.... see below

Dawn penned

[...]

At some point I would be interested in hearing concise argument for and against film alteration. If such a thing can be done in a clear and concise manner. I have read Fetzer on other matters and he is very clear. Maybe I will just get the book.

dgh01: Good idea, time permitting you might even read my chapter in that very same book... As for Bill Miller-Peters, eh, he needs to have his knuckles rapped every now and then, someone to remind him that he's the new kid on the block -- ego's way to LARGE. You'll notice if you follow some of his nonsense...

David Healy

Author [that really ticks Miller-Peters off, roflmao]

BM whinned on

[...]

If you talked at Fetzerfest like you do on this forum, then I have to wonder if there was anyone there who was capable of noticing your vocabulary mistakes. I know that where I went to school - even the kids who rode the little bus knew better than to use a word like "use" for the word "you's" ... yet you continue to do it even after you've been told about it. Maybe Fetzer was happy to just get whoever he could - I only know that in Dallas they seem to frown on speakers who haven't at least mastered the English language better than what you've done.

dgh01: perhaps thar's other **fish-to-fry** in the worldwide scheme of things? -- One thing for sure, whatever came out of the book HOAX, it's kept the reich-wing whinners real busy for months and now well over a year -- the more **youse guy's** drone on about it, the more folks question  the Z-film, and its authenticity.

Someday, don't know when, you'll see a DVD of the preceedings, David Lifton was GREAT, btw.

When it comes to photo analysis, your bush [pardon the pun] league, Bill. But keep trying! We all love a bit of comedic relief...

... your welcome, don't mention it!

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BM whinned on

[...]

If you talked at Fetzerfest like you do on this forum, then I have to wonder if there was anyone there who was capable of noticing your vocabulary mistakes. I know that where I went to school - even the kids who rode the little bus knew better than to use a word like "use" for the word "you's" ... yet you continue to do it even after you've been told about it. Maybe Fetzer was happy to just get whoever he could - I only know that in Dallas they seem to frown on speakers who haven't at least mastered the English language better than what you've done.

dgh01: perhaps thar's other **fish-to-fry** in the worldwide scheme of things? -- One thing for sure, whatever came out of the book HOAX, it's kept the reich-wing whinners real busy for months and now well over a year -- the more **youse guy's** drone on about it, the more questions folks have about the Z-film and its authenticity.

Someday, you'll see a DVD of the preceedings

When it comes to photo analysis, your bush [pardon the pun] league, Bill. But keep trying! We all love a bit of comedic relief...

... your welcome, don't mention it!

David Healy

dgh01: Well, you responded, eh? And, I was invited to speak one year, unfornately, I was called out of the country for a bit of work, sigh.

Yeh - I think anyone can speak the first time ... it's only after you've been heard is how they decide if they ever want you back.

C'mon Larry Peter's -- you had plenty of time to check out what you needed to, shall I post the URL's, AGAIN?   Where did this Larry Peters guy disappear to?

I will tell you what I told Jack White - Larry seemed to be responding to the photo and film alteration thread that has been dead for some time now. He has been seen looking in at various times. I believe one of those times can be witnessed in a recent thread where a capture of the board showed several users who were on at the same time. Larry was one of them.

Then again if The Tinkster; Josiah Thompson and all the rest of the junior varsity [including you] couldn't overcome the burden showing Dr. John Costella and the rest of us regarding the Z-film wrong -- Hey.... roflmfao...

You sound like Baghdad Bob telling everyone how Saddam had the US on the run. You can say it, but none of it is true.

Buy the book, HOAX -- it's all in there.... Ever get that "seamless' DP film comparison done yet? What's it been now 3 years.....? What a farce the other side of this question is. Preservers of history,  H O W L .... I think not!

None of the assassination films start and stop at the same times, so seemless is just talk by someone who knows little about the films. Anyone can use the head shot to Kennedy as a reference point and advance the films forwards or backwards and not see a single descrepency between any of the films. Instead of asking someone to do a lot of work for nothing - why don't you just point out a particular point in time on the films where you don't think they match and we'll all take a look at it. (Oh that's right ... you've posted before that you have no proof of Zfilm alteration)

What's a matter with "all use guys?" When use guys are charging $200 bucks a head for a little get together in Dallas, rehashing the same-o, same-o... Give us guys a break, use guys! rofl...

David Healy

How much did it cost everyone to go to 'Fetzerfest' in Minnesota? Besides, I think Conway will discount your ticket if you can show her you have successfully mastered the use of the English language and stop saying words like "use" in place of "you's".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

don't know -- all expenses were paid! Just the way they do it in the big leagues...

Lisen Missah Bill, I suh-do has the English language purfected, use need better ears, ya'all heah'a...

that's 'youse' tsk-tsk

David Healy