David G. Healy

10 hours ago, Trygve V. Jensen said:

 

Agreed. 

Thanks Michael for the links to these two videos. Great stuff! Digital technology certaintly has progressed the last 10-12 years. 

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

*** Saddening (to me) to observe unnecessary personal attacks on eachother,- but even more saddening to see that a man who did so incredibly much work, regarding this case, - through all these years, --- which name is being used in this fashion, - especially when he is now no longer with us, to defend himself.

(As I "knew" him (which I did not personally; only benefited through e-mails, where he took of his time to even assist me) , --- I don't think he even would comment on such language , characterizing him this way indirectly, - being above such standard(s) as this.)

[...]

Mack did just fine defending himself... then again, he was the Dallas 6th Floor mouth piece defending 1964 WCR conclusions. So did the Gang of 8 wayback in 2003. Was GMack a participant? Perhaps.

What digital technology progression? explain how its helped you conclude anything regarding your photo "studies," please.

Nor does latter day technology add to, or, aid in the following conclusion: a conspiracy murdered JFK! Won't you agree?

52 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

 

Do not forget this one, which proves something very important - NO film alteration.  At all.

 

spoken like a true Gary Mack-ite, because he says so! Geta' grip Sherlock... You haven't the chops as to what Hollywierd can and can NOT do.

21 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

I did not know that Paul.

 

Where did you discover that info?

https://nyphil.org/jfk

pretty interesting stuff, Jim.   --David

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

 

[...]

But to think that a REAL (11/22/63) film exists that shows the things David Josephs mentioned is laughable. No "real" film of that nature exists. And it's humorous to think that anyone could possibly think it does.

 

 

amazing, even mockup, reenactment films lie.... all those folks waving and cheering along Elm Street. Where do you see that in the extant Zapruder film, Dave? It ain't there, Bubba.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

 

Hey Michael....

Thanks for having my back buddy.....  When I can remember not to take the bait... All is good.

I applaud those with cooler heads... I'm Passionate, Mediterranean, hot blooded.....

And make no excuses.... 

What else would we call those who can command the attention of the forum for nothing more than to debate manners, spelling, grammar and syntax.... 

 

the more things change, the more they stay the SAME...   Hang in there, DJ!

1 minute ago, Michael Walton said:

 

[...]

I mean really Steve...that's a huge heap of speculation.

 

the 1964 WCR is  "theory", Studley. Ya losing grip? Or, NYT Best selling author's make you nervous?

It appears the 'LHO did it all by his lonesome' (read: 1964 WCR report supporters [despite their protestations otherwise]) crowd is getting very nervous about DSL upcoming book. I wonder why? tsk-tsk.

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

 

And you'll  have to excuse Dave "everything and the kitchen sink is a conspiracy" Josephs for thinking everything  was faked.

The man knows no bounds. Just recently he actually  believed that a part of the street was actually  painted  in in the Z film.

And when others here disagree with his craziness   here he resorts to personal  attacks . So keep that  in  mind  when  you  read  his  long  rambling  posts here.

your inexperience regarding Z-film study is noted. Without loon nut, blind support of the extant Z-film (currently housed at NARA under the control of the 6th Floor Mausoleum), well, let's just say, the Z-film is the lynch-pin of the 1964 WCR LHO's did all by his lonesome. Without it, the WCR case collapses... of course, its suspect, of course, it's going to be scrutinized. You know NO bounds, lad! 20 years behind times... I sense a WCR support conversion, soon!

14 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Yes, that's exactly my point.  All actions have results.

Blow on a candle = flame goes out
Push a ball = it rolls
?? Sinister ?? = Frames were removed

You have to answer this, Chris, to make your case at least somewhat plausible. There's simply no answer for it because it never happened like you described.

Another thing to consider. Take a look at the image below and provide a plausible rebuttal to it. You cannot.  It's that simple. You cannot simply say that the Bad Guys neatly removed every third frame because it goes against the odds of every third frame neatly showing something sinister and therefore they had to be removed.

IMO - you didn't seem to get mad when Josephs rebutted your "he was shot from the pavillion" thread but you seem to get very angry when I rebut your "67% of the frames were removed from the Z film" theory? Why is that?

David Healy - instead of merely trying to turn this back on me to do more work to prove things otherwise, do you have any plausible rebuttal to this instead of cheering Chris on here?

Hello Studley, Say listen, you're asking a lot of questions and answering those very question in the same post most of the time. Which leads me to ask, why are you asking questions if, IF you already have the answer? Never fret, most .john-ites have the same problem, in fact, you're plowing the same ground as lone nutters have since 2000. Ya need a new act, man!

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

[...]

You have NO CLUE about what you're talking about here.  And yet, I'm supposedly the idiot who doesn't understand anything!

What a joke!

 

Indeed, and it's, on YOU I might add. If you had any *cred* it might be different, but, alas, all .Johnites trend the same, and you fit the mold to a "T". Carry on.

On 1/23/2018 at 3:35 PM, Michael Walton said:

 

 

As Lance P said elsewhere, CTers see conspiracy  everywhere and get bogged down in the minutiae of the case. Yet when it's  time to discuss WHY things happen they  have no answer.

So here  is yet another  good example of this CTer phenomena. And we  now have to ask WHY?

WHY would the government  do whatever  it is that's  being described here? The answer? There is no reason.

The government would  have had to have a very good reason  to go through all of this trouble of creating subterfuge. But to this day NO CTer can give us a plausible reason of WHY all of this trouble  was done with the Z film.

The reason? Because  the  film is legit. It's  as simple  as that.

And even IF Z was standing  there pressing the FPS button to his heart's  desire what would THAT prove?

The answer is  the  same....nothing.

Next, you'll be seeing the *Dave Reitzes* light pointing towards loon nut conversion, tsk-tsk. You're  in way over your head. 

28 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

James,

Oliver Stone??

With all due respect, do you mean the guy who has David Ferrie confessing to killing Kennedy in the film "JFK," and whose son is (or was) working for Putin's propaganda outlet, "RT"?

--  Tommy 

 

what is "endlessly" fascinating is Lone Nut response to Oliver Stones movie, JFK. Nearly 30 years and the Marquette gang hasn't lost a step.

10 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

Yes Paul.. she lied.

And when repeatedly given opportunity to correct herself... she only digs deeper...

Marina stated that she had only used a camera once in her entire life... to take the BY Photos.  When asked to recount how she took the photo she stated she held the camera up to her face and pushed the button Ozzie told her to...  

THIS is what she would have seen when looking down into the box camera for the one and only time in her life... yet this view she can't remember ?  And not only can't she remember but 1 photo becomes 2 photos becomes 3 photos becomes 4 photos with one burned and one lost until 1977.

Worse yet, the woman needs to repeat the viewfinder process 4 times while getting perfect, crystal clear images, repeatedly...

Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures.
I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.

Mr. RANKIN. How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.
Mr. RANKIN. And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was he?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. You have examined that picture since, and noticed that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken, have you not?
Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time' that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.

 

So you see Paul...  your repeated sad attempts at expressing your growing opinions winds up showing off how little you know of the evidence.  I'm not going to take the time to show you everywhere Marina lied over the years...  would fall on deaf ears as you still aint gonna learn what you simply don't wanna know...

great job, Dave.....

On 12/4/2017 at 9:35 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 

There goes David Josephs again, resorting to insults as he often does. Michael Walton has as much right to post here as you do. If you want to have a discussion with him or refute his arguments go ahead, but please stop the tactics of personal insult.

Come on Parnell, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know Walton is hooked to your hip and .john's. Same old storied lone nut, LHO did it all by his lonesome nonsense whiners have been foisting on the research community for 25 years.

On 12/1/2017 at 11:48 AM, David Josephs said:

 

[...]

So again, what is it that YOU do to improve understanding for all in this case?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was wondering the same dam* thing. Unless of course .john minions inhabit the Ed Forum, again.

thanks for posting this, Doug.

any surveying experience in Dealey Plaza, Dallas per chance?

The Nutter's are wearin' out, after all these years. Hang in there, Guys!

On 7/7/2017 at 2:13 AM, Michael Walton said:

 

This belongs over in the Math or Egypt forums.

Or in a new one called My Fantasy World.

nutters get very nervous when the Zapruder film is called into question... (so sad). Been going on for 25 years. Math rules!

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

 

 

 

This thread should be renamed The Kennedy  Assassination  A Primer and pinned to the top of this forum. Not only does JD cover the case well but Giglio has some outstanding links to other resources.

Yet, only 300 odd views of it. Meanwhile, the craziness and zaniness on this forum continues with, for example, Chris carrying on with the ridiculous Towner Frame Split thread - 13,000 views and counting.

That's  why it's  even more important  to pin this to the  top so there's  some kind of  balance before visitors start wading  through  the  muck.

tsk-tsk... Muck? The films related to the JFK assassination/Dealey Plaza have been *real* popular for the past 20+ years. And, American taxpayers paid 16 million buck$ for the Zapruder film, MUCK? Altered film MUCK? Nutters have found it most difficult supporting that *LHO did it all by his lonesome*  sleight of hand because of those more than likely altered films. Every single Dealey Plaza assassination film is suspect. Math doesn't lie.

6 hours ago, Dan Doyle said:

 

Crazy like a befuddled fox.  I think he's losing it.  In his exchange with Comey,  McCain was completely befuddled (looked like dementia to me) by what Comey was saying about the two investigations; namely, the Hilary Email Server investigation was completed on July 5th, 2016 and the current Russian Meddling/Trump Cover-up investigation is ongoing; not completed.  I was watching live and was astounded by McCain lack of wits.....and this guy is a sitting Senator.  I was surprised that no one on the Committee came to his rescue.  They just let him twist in wind

actually McCain got help, the Charman cut him off at the knees.

nice job Chris(s), David J., etal....

On 3/24/2017 at 7:54 PM, Jeff Carter said:

 

hi David

"re-constituting" the Z-film in the manner you have suggested was not possible, Hollywood special effects lab or not. You frequently cite the book Techniques of Special Effects Cinematography by Raymond Fielding. But Fielding’s own opinion of Zapruder film alteration is clear: “in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available … if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963, the results could not possibly have survived professional scrutiny … challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation … are technically naïve.”

Your claim it makes "no difference what 8mm film stock the finished stock ended up on" is not a viable surmise. All film stocks have particular grain structure and exposure indexes, and alteration would need to match the particulars of the Kodachrome stock of the original. Zavada discusses this on page 18 of his response to Horne, which has been pointed out to you previously.

I do agree that American taxpayers were poorly served. That the film copyright is in effect is controlled by the Sixth Floor Museum - which has not hesitated to request large fees for use of the film, as Shane O'Sullivan has attested - is outrageous. 

 

Jeff, Hi, and BS re "professional scrutiny"! Here's a simple test, Jeff. How do YOU, or, a post-production film lab tech "prove" the Kodachrome II Zap film currently stored at NARA is a 1963 in-camera, 8mm film original? And don't go to Rollie Zavada's canned report re the Zapruder film. I asked Rollie the same question years ago, amongst other questions. Dr. John Costella had a few questions and comments too...

Actually, Rollie was suppose to appear at the 2003 Univ. of Minn Symposium (Jack White, John Costella, David Mantik and David Lifton and myself) on the Zapruder Film. He never showed up. That was a shame, and I told him same. He did tell me though he's an expert re the make-up of 8mm film (which I knew from his Zavada Report). He did admit to be a bit short on professional film compositing experience and knowledge, that's why he sought Professor Fielding input.

On 3/25/2017 at 9:05 AM, Michael Walton said:

 

 

David Healy - Hollywood production...

Sure, Dave, sure.  They had a bevy of "Hollywood" editors, matte artists, and painters at the ready. They even had Hitchcock, pulled away from The Birds, on stand by to direct it all. One thing they shot down was he wanted to incorporate the sodium vapor process to mask out the front head shots, but that would have required the car, Jackie, and the Connallys to be flown to Hollywood to film it all. So he just reverted to blobs. "Just paint in blobs," was his lone direction before leaving disgruntled. Do you not see how silly this sounds?

http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/hollywoods-history-of-faking-it-the-evolution-of-greenscreen-compositing/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_vapor_process

David Josephs,

FWIW, you did a nice job on the Mexico City caper.  I try to look at this case as "how does the ends justify the means?" The MC caper, IMO, has a real "means" to it. In the continuing quest to make Lee look like a wildman Communist, they had him picking fights and handing out leaflets in NO; they had people lining up out the door "testifying" that he beat his wife; they had hilariously overdone pictures of him holding all of his weapons (and some leftwing newspapers to boot); and yes, one more "ends" to justify the means was making up the story that he was down in MC, supposedly cavorting with a Russian assassin and raising hell.

But this is where many CT-ers get themselves in trouble just because of what one person said in the testimony, or because one other official said he didn't see something and suddenly, the whole thing is blown out of proportion. "Yep, there's the proof.  This guy put some briefing boards together but he didn't see anything for several hours.  Yep, there's the proof the film was being squirreled away to be altered."

There are no "ends" here because it would have been impossible to remove what the film shows. The film we see today SHOWS plenty in it to destroy the SBT. So if they knew that, why in the world didn't they at least try to remove it? They didn't because it's far easier to keep the film from the public (which they did) and have their folks in the media lie about it (which they did).

CT-ers should be grateful that Zapruder was there that day to film it. Can you imagine what this case would be like if he had not been? The Muchmore and Nix films and stills would be all we'd have and those - combined - show nothing compared to the Z film. But for some odd and strange and weird reason, many CT-ers want it all - they want a shooter in the storm drain right next to the car; they want blobs painted into the Z film; they want Jackie or Greer shooting JFK; they want the umbrella guy shooting a dart; they want the three guys standing down on the steps, one of them holding a black pistol in his hand; they want a 12 year old Lee and his 12 year old Hungarian clone, and their near identical mothers - one smiling and one sad with a unibrow - walking around way back in 1953 for some untold and unforseen caper to take place years later.

To be honest, it's incredibly scary how the human mind works. 

 

 

c'mon Mr. Walton, you can do better that that can't ya? And, green screen compositing? Either you're a little rusty concerning film compositing techniques circa. 1963 or, ignorant concerning the entire subject of special effects (film) cinematography... and dragging Jackie into the conversation? No class, sir!

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

 

Jeff:

I think what you are saying is that although you would allow for some minor alteration, that you are skeptical of any wholesale alterations like e.g. traveling mattes etc.?

 

 

the WC did not screen the Z-film officially till 2/28/64 or thereabouts. Plenty of time for a fully re-constituted Z-film. Provided a good, Hollywood type of special effects film lab was on the job. Makes no difference what 8mm film stock the finished stock ended up on. This was not, NOT a War & Peace length edit.

Re: a Zapruder family member writing a book about the film? I said wow then and now, the family was paid 16 million bucks (what, 7-10 years ago) by the American taxpayer for the film. The Zapruder family trust still receives yearly royalties for film usage and rental. The American taxpayer got taken, AGAIN.