David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Ahh, I don't know Mr. Peter's -- you know lines don't mean too much, especially when they're *not* on imagery - I point to your comments regarding JWhite studies and theses, actually I see this nonsense as delay, YOUR delay of the obvious.
We might have something to talk about Mr. Peter's IF you had a simple understanding of optical film printing. Of course you've demonstrated NO understanding of even the rudimentary 'basics of optical printing'. Might I suggest you talk to Moe Weitzman, hell -- send David Lifton a note, or even praytell read Lifton's section in Hoax -- he did do a little optical printing himself you know -- talk to Doug Horne he's here on this forum -- a nice guy, too.
What I see happening here Mr. Peter's is this, an obvious disregard for work done by noted scientists and researchers and all we hear from the peanut gallery is: they're wrong, trust me -- but don't ask me what my qualifications are when I post material composed of a few lines on a blank sheet that supposedly proves a thesis wrong -- then hide behind Lancer...
You do any matte work Mr. Peter's?
Till then, I'll be around...
-
[...]
Any questions, Mr. Healy?
[...]
Not-a-One you can answer Mr. Peter's or whomever -- keep trying though, you may spark some interest from one of the still photo pro's.
Guess nobody but me will talk with you. Most of the folks aren't interested in trading nonsense with those they can't depend on being who they say they are -- Why waste the bandwidth, is what I'm hearing...
guess that translates into Nope, no questions, Bill!
Best regard's
David Healy
-
Show us, YOUR best. Try as you might Mr. Peter's or whomever -- you might want to put a little evidence - as in, what your words profess?
What Miller professes on Lancer ain't going to cut it, repeat -- SHOW us with clips, clips that have been certified by ONE with photgraphic analysis credentials, hopefully a Physicist specializing in optics - not by someone that wants a job with Photoshop's parent corporation Adobe -- I've already told you, I'll lay the groundwork for wild Bill's resume. Attention: the CEO of Adobe, Dr. John Warnock --done some business with him, way back when Illustrator was created...
Perk up Mr. Peter's, we're still hopful that you'll get something, anything to together...
btw - you've got poor net-ettiquete, why yell?
Pauly want a cracker [geez]
David Healy
-
Does anyone have any JFK assassination photo and film related hoax things to talk about? We appear to be getting away from the topic of this thread and it won't be long I expect we'll be seeing postings going back and forth about how the family pets are doing, if little Josh is potty trained yet, that one of you just had a root canal, or some other non-related event that has nothing to do with this topic. It just seems like a separate topic maybe called "General JFK related News" might be in order.
dgh01:Call Gary, he'll give you a hand -- A few of us are waiting for you to put forth something -- anything JFK related that has one iota of original research --till then Josh's potty trained experiences will do just fine. I suspect it will be a VERY long wait -- then again, you may surprise me, but I doubt it!
----------
-
[...]
A couple of months after the Washington Post publicized that the Committee’s safe had been broken into, a man named Harrison Livingstone claimed that he was selling photographs from President Kennedy’s autopsy.
At that time, Robert Blakey had said, “There are two things possible here. Either it’s a fraud, or it’s an attempt to sell stolen property.”
Harrison Livingstone responded at that time by saying that they weren’t stolen, but the day after he made his claim about trying to sell the photographs, he said he was taking them off the market, still claiming that they weren’t stolen but allegedly claiming that he feared the Justice Department would take action against him.
Photographs ultimately surfaced that show a bullet-size hole in the back of President Kennedy’s skull and the public has accepted that they are from President Kennedy’s autopsy.
[...]
dgh01: Might want to check Robert Groden regarding: a source of "autopsy photos". He was queried about the pics and how he obtained them - I believe David Lifton discussed this in HOAX, in any case his [Groden's] testimony is in the public record.
David Healy
-------------
-
My Year 10 (aged 14-15) are now starting on a piece of coursework: 'Why is JFK remembered so positively?'. I have attached the questions they came up with in groups. Answers and different views from experts would be great for when we start back in September or for pupils to look at over the Summer.
Question: What evidence is there that JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam?
dgh01: Might want to see if back issues of Stars and Stripes [Pacific Asia theater military newspaper in circulation at the time - probably STILL is] are on the web. Kennedy's 1,000 man pullout intention was common knowledge amongst MAAG-Vietnam personnel in Vietnam [later summer '63]. It was given [at the time] much press in Pacific Star and Stripes.
having been in-country [Republic of South Vietnam] at the time, 02-'63 thru 02-'64, I'm well aware of the media coverage at the time.
David Healy
-------------
Background details of the people answering this question can be found at:
-
Fairly persuasive arguments for Zapruder film alteration...
There are animations on each page, allow all images to load when moving from page to page.
Thanks to Dr. John Costella in making these pages available to the general public and those researchers that have long held belief's that something is wrong with the extant Z-film.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/index.html
Best regard's to all,
David Healy
-
Bernice --
Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving the case for alteration. In refusing to address Mr. Peter's concerns regarding film alteration, of course all he can move on is JWhites work - discredit him [meaning Jack White], by default - possible alteration of the Zapruder film goes by the wayside ... yeadada, yadada, yadada...
And the beat goes on...
Nice to see you posting, lady! Hope all is well with you and your's.
David Healy
-
[...]
When you can't refute the challengers, post nothing contrary to the challengers responses, the best your left with is Mr. Peter's... "I can appreciate your desire to advertise for TGZFH book and Mr. Costella's web page..." ROFLMAO - Bill Miller or James Gordon? Your guess is as good as mine...
Mr. Healy, If you spent more time reading the information being discussed between Jack White and I instead of trying to draw attention away from the dicussions, you would see that I am addressing an authoritive voice. If you have a particular photo or film alteration claim that you want discussed, then put one up and tell us why you believe it is legit and we can all take a close look at it together. Why you keep posting such things like saying that I cannot refute challenegs when that is exactly what I have been doing when I can get someone to actually make one, seems to be a total fabrication on your part. What I find even more amazing, other than the sites administrator tolerating your intentional childish interruptions, is that you make these claims when the postings I have made are still available for reading and speak for themselves by the level of detail I provide with each one.
dgh01:
Mr. Peter's, Jack White is more than capable in handling himself, he's plenty of experience...-- My challenge to you regarding your comments and discussions regarding JWhites photo studies and research -- is thi; post your own research, nobody in this research community like a whinner - a parrot of other people's work - show a little chuztpah, take a chance - let us see something original. Jack manages to do just that - he wins some and loses some - just the nature of the beast...
He's assisted many in doing just that [creating **original**] - only respectful thing to do --
With this Mr. Peter's - Gordon or whomever you are, I bow out of your charade, your not worth the time... Have a nice life -
David Healy
-
My name is David Healy - I reside in both Northern California and Southern Nevada, (Reno - Lake Tahoe and Las Vegas respectively)
My interest in this case goes back to 1963. (I was stationed with the USArmy in the Republic of South Vietnam when JFK was assassinated)
My specific focus, regarding this research endeavour, is JFK assassination motion film "evidence", primarily the Zapruder film.
Contrary to many that "do film/photo research regarding this subject, I make NO claim that the film or films are altered! WAS it possible to alter the Zapruder film, as in: was the time; personnel; equipment; optical film printing techniques and know-how available in late 1963 and '64? Of course it was. It was available 25 years before that. In certain forms, 80+ years before THAT!
With all the noise that's generated here and other places on the internet regarding this subject, it's little wonder that other's are starting to give the film alteration thesis room to grow.
The question has ALWAYS been, ** IF ** the film is altered - WHY, and if so, WHAT is being covered up.
Questions regarding techniques of possible Zapruder film alteration, or Zapruder film specifc questions covered in the book HOAX? Attempts will be made to answer any and ALL questions posed by readers that aren't addressed on Dr. John Costella's website or Dr. Jim Fetzer's websites.
I sincerely appreciate John Simkin's effort in bringing the JFK assassination to this fine 'teaching' forum.
David Healy
Reno, Nv. - Lake Tahoe, Calif.
07-14-04
-
Evidently Mr. Peter's is attempting to last as long as he can without debating authorative voices regarding the finer points of possible alteration regarding the Z-film -- We all know the time frames for this and that, most times are in dispute, too! Thus we see these non-sensical points Mr. Peter's continuously falls back on -- he's nothing to say -- as he takes refuge in taking shots at Jack White -- and most of those are blanks ...
When you can't refute the challengers, post nothing contrary to the challengers responses, the best your left with is Mr. Peter's... "I can appreciate your desire to advertise for TGZFH book and Mr. Costella's web page..." ROFLMAO - Bill Miller or James Gordon? Your guess is as good as mine...
-------------------
I'll be posting a URL for the NEW main page - one with animated .gif's that even Mr. Peter's can understand... I might learn to like this guy, once I meet him. If he's been around as long as he say's, I don't understand why nobody knows who he is?Mr. Healy - there are many people who have studied the JFK assassination and I bet that before you heard of this site - you had never heard the name John Simkin before. Besides, it's not the researchers who are usually remembered for being in the spotlight, but rather the grandstanders.
dgh01: I do believe John Simkin posts on the JFK Research site, as well as lancer, which I'm sure YOU of all people know of!
David Healy
-------------
Once Mr. Peter's reviews the website, get's up to speed sort of speak - we can dialogue about the possible alteration of the camera original Zapruder Film - which is why he's here in the first place.Mr. Healy, I have seen every claim of photo and film alteration mentioned in TGZFH and let me remind you that it has not been I that has evaded getting into the specifics of these claims. When you feel that you can address the questions put to you or can at least explain why you believe an alteration claim is valid other than just saying 'anthing is possible', then I'll be happy to go over the evidence with you, as well.
. The first three URL's discuss "The Gang" which is more grandstanding that I have little interest in. Mr. Costella does have a piece written about a 27 hour window of time before Mary Moorman's number 5 Polaroid was ran in the newspapers whereas he claims that left time for her photograph to have been altered. What Mr. Costella didn't know or bother to find out before hand is that Mary Moorman, her camera and her camera original photo were filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination, but the film wasn't shown on NBC until 3:15pm Dallas time on the very day of the assassination. When filmed, the picture had not yet been out of her hands. Like with the Altgens 6 photograph going on the Associated Press news wire by 1:03 p.m. CST and before any time could have been allotted for altering that photograph, it's really waste of time talking about what could have been done to the photgraph at a later time for the window of opportunity was closed when the photo was shown publicly. Unless Moorman altered her photograph herself within the first 30 minutes following the assassination and before it was taped to be shown on TV in a few hours, then what occurred over the next 27 hours after that is meaningless. I cannot stress the importance of this enough and I am sure you are intelligent enough to see the problem here for Mr. Costella. Maybe had Mr. Costella had known all the facts to start with, then maybe he would not have even written the piece on Moorman's photograph to start with, but he did and he wasn't aware of all the details. Now with all that said - there can be no logical purpose for reading what Mr. Costella wrote about the possible altering of Moorman's #5 Polaroid over the next 27 hours following the assassination. On the other hand, if he should ever write about how Mary Moorman altered her photograph within the first 30 minutes following the assassination, then that would grab my interest in seeing how he explains it was done.
-
Evidently Mr. Peter's can't quite find his way there - hopefully he'll venture out and see what the Z-film alteration camp has for his perusal, let us know his ** opinion **, unless of course he's degreed in the appropriate specialty, then he can correct or point out errors -- if he'd like Gary Mack's email address to write and ask permission, I'll gladly provide it.
Alway helpful,
David Healy
p.s. here's the URL Mr. Peter's re: the main page of Dr. Costella's website
http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/
I'll be posting a URL for the NEW main page - one with animated .gif's that even Mr. Peter's can understand... I might learn to like this guy, once I meet him. If he's been around as long as he say's, I don't understand why nobody knows who he is?
Once Mr. Peter's reviews the website, get's up to speed sort of speak - we can dialogue about the possible alteration of the camera original Zapruder Film - which is why he's here in the first place.
The attacks and criticisms on Jack White and his voluminous work is a charade, Jack's convienent, forthcoming, as well as a great - respectful guy, not to mention a great photog. How he puts up with the abuse he deal's with, I'll never understand.
-
[...]
You, mentioned somewhere along the way, emails you have received , and I took it to mean something like, some, are backing what you are posting...Well let me inform you Mr.Peters, there are other emails flying that are not backing you and do not like your heavy handed approach.......
I expect that what you say is true, but if those people cannot tell whose overlay is which like you failed to do with the pedestal example that I posted showing the alleged missing windows, then maybe some of that email you speak of as to my being in error has been wrongfully misplaced.
dgh01: hang in there, Bernice - Gary is at top form for the moment, I suspect he, Miller and this guy are attemtping to postjack this forum when it comes to Z-film photo info -- we've been down the road before, their credibility amongst the "research" community is firmly positioned in the cellar. All they can do is tear apart jack White..
David.
-
YES, I WAS HAVING A DEJA VU:
dgh01: it's okay WIM lot's of us understand you've been taking a beating over the TEAM Judyth controversy on the big internet boards...
From Bill Miller:
It was Jack White who invited me to that site back in 1998 or 1999. I recieved nothing but praise on that site from Jack and Fetzer and was even asked to present at the 2000 Lancer conference. It was when I looked at and challenged Jack's "Mary Moorman being in the street" nonsense that DelleRosa soon terminated my membership. I might add that at the time DelleRosa was taking donations to keep his site running and he had just cashed a $100.00 check of mine and waited until it cleared the bank before turning off my membership. Thompson, Lamson, Miller, Hepler, Peters and anyone else who challenged Jack White's nutty claims of film and photo alteration have all been banished from that site. If one goes there now and looks at the membership position ... they will see that the site at JFKResearch is "alterationist" site.
I have not been on the JFK Research site since the late part of 1999 or the early part of 2000.
dgh01: Thats Adobe Photoshop Bill for you, can't make up his mind even today -- have 'em post a
.jpg of the cancelled check - better yet a animated .gif...
----------
Jack White saying that I have been gone from there only two years now is just another misstated fact created by Jack.
Bill
-
Roland Zavada seems to be an “affiliate member” of The Gang: he had been employed by Tink and Mack as one of his suppliers of hard science, but since pulling out of the Duluth Conference—admitting he was completely out of his depth—he has not been as eager to contribute to the cause.
In the event that some other people may have gotten the wrong impression, I want to clarify some things that Mr. Healy did not. Zavada had been asked to authenticate the Zapruder films authenticity in ways that had nothing to do with comparing it to other films and photos. When Zavada learned what the Deluth Conference was about, he had no choice but to bow out because he had not done any film and photo cross-referencing for signs of alteration. By no means did Zavada ever mean that he was not qualified to have done the job, just that it was not part of the process he had undertaken in his previous work. So at that point in time he may have felt out of his league to discuss Jack White's claims at the conference, but not in the way Mr. Healy portrayed it to mean.
dgh01: Ah, Mr. Peter's Dr. Costella might have a differing take on this than you do, actually so do I -- of course, if you can cite for Zavada's reasoning -- have you spoke to him, Roland Zavada recently?
David Healy
-
dgh01: I suspect competent scientific researchers will correct errors made by Dr. John Costella, Dr. David Mantik - David Lifton, etc ... Someone on the OTHER side of the alteration argument needs to provide PROOF of a clean *chain of evidence* summary regarding the alledged Z-film and 3 optical film prints of.
I wonder if Mr. David Mantik ever noticed White's mistakes concerning where Jean Hill and Mary Moorman stood during the shooting? If he did, then there certainly isn't any record of it in TGZFH. I remember Miller posting on Lancer that he was asked in an email by Mr. Lifton how he knew Moorman wasn't in the street and Miller told him that Mary's camera lens is looking over the top of the cycle riders windscreens ...
dgh02: well Mr. Peters, it Dr. David Mantik M.D. by the way he also has a Ph.D. in Physics, he also has has an email address -- ASK him? Better yet e-mail Dr. Cyril Wecht, their pretty good friends
that it was impossible for the 54" camera height that White attributed to Moorman to see over the top of the taller 58" high windscreens of the cycles while standing in the street. Miller went on to point out to Mr. Lifton that the photo showing when Moorman was in the street can be seen on page 233 of Richard Trask book "The Pictures of the Pain". In that photo of Officer McBride riding down Elm Street we can see the people along the north side of Elm Street through the windscreen, whereas in Moorman #5 Polarod we see the Bill Newman well above the windscreen of Martin and Hargis. It appears that not only did Mr. Mantik, Mr. Costella, Mr. Lifton and Mr. Fetzer failed to recognize this crucial point, but all the other alteration believers, as well.
dgh02: Mr., Mr., Mr...... these folks Mr. peter's or who ever you are are DOCTORS, PhD's and/or MD's, too much fog in Scotland, perhaps.....
--------------
Now what degree in science does it take to understand the error that all these men made? To this date - not one of these men has produced an art teacher who teaches perspective to their students that will say that the observation Miller made was in error. For me, the bigger question isn't how Miller picked up on this all important point, but how were these well educated men able to miss it? I personally think that the only way to explain it is that these individuals were in an alteration mindset before they ever started and that while looking for something hard to spot so to show photo and film alteration, they missed the easy things to spot.
dgh02: your sounding suspiciously like someone I've had dealings with in the past, Mr. whomever?
Muchmore? Eh, At the time TV stations did NOT air film in the 8mm format, it has to be bumped to 16mm. Who in New York Citydid that, and where is that film? Guess what? Any film in the 16mm format is a **prime** candidate for alteration. Did the TV station have a "air check tape recorded" that show's us the EXACT Muchmore film that was aired? What NYC - TV station aired the segment, how many times was the segment aired and over the course of how many day's did it air...This subject was dealt with in-depth on Lancer and I am sure I seen your name on some of the replies in those threads, so you surely cannot be in the dark on this subject. I'm not going to go back and do your homework for you, but I will cite from memory as to how the information was discovered and how you can check on its accuracy if you really want to.
dgh02: don't bother - I own the books, btw -- I don't do Lancer, Miller is quite comfortable living behind Debra's skirt. He has the same problem you do -- nothing original, therefore a provocateur.
----------------
Richard Trask wrote in his book "The Pictures of the Pain" about Muchmore's film in a chapter called "The Justin McCarty Women". Trask details the sale of the Muchmore film in that chapter. Then one of the researchers at Lancer contacted Gary Mack to see what more could be learned about what happened next with Muchmmore's film. Mack cited a TV station where the film was aired and a newspaper article that was printed the following day talking about the airing of Muchmore's film the night before. All this should be a matter of record and it was posted on Lancer no less than a year ago and possibly as long as two years ago. I would think that has been plenty of time for anyone to have contacted Gary Mack to validated the specifics and then followed up by searching their local libraries for the newspaper article that mentioned the airing of the Muchmore film. As I recall - the dates to look for have to be around the 25th to the 27th of Novemeber 63'.
-
Here is an example of a faulty approach that was taken by the alteration crowd to see if Moorman's photo had been altered. Notice how the windows in the cropped overlay do not match. To better see this - place your mouse arrow on the right hand side of the Moorman window and watch the overlay run. You will see that alterationist photographers window shifts to one side, thus he was not even standing at the right angle to the pedestal when he took his test photo. Had the camera of been exactly where Moorman was standing, then there should be no shifting seen between the cropped version of his photo and Moorman's photo. You will also see the vertical walls between the photographer's photo and Moorman's Poaroid go back and forth like a set of windshield wipers in partial motion. There are two possible reasons for this. One is that Moorman had her camera tilted lightly downward and looking at the President and the alterationist photographer had his camera angled upward. Once a camera lens falls below the horizontal plane it will cause vertical lines to lean in one direction. The more below the plane the camera angle is - the more the vertical lines will lean. When a camera leans is tilted upward above the horizontal plane - the vertical lines will lean the other way. The other possible cause for what were are seeing may be that the photographer didn't align his cropped overlay properly. Regardless of how the mistake was made, it is quite noticeable when seen in motion. (Click on the image to start in motion)
dgh01: WOW, what photographic qualifications do you have that would make me/others take you seriously? Are you a specialist in camera optics? I suspect NOT. Are you claiming this work as yours Mr. Peter's? One that you created, might you be crediting other's for this work? If so, WHO? To insure credibility, might be nice to know. Btw, Mr. Peter's you discussing a STILL photo, the Moorman5 photo to be exact. Might want to get the readers [that do NOT have TGZFH] up to speed
with what your countering here - and WHY your countering least you can do!
--------------------
-
Here is ome follow up information on Muchmore's film and its trip to New York that I was made available by questioning Gary Mack. Gary said -
I reported this information several YEARS ago. No one has refuted it, for no one can. The film was bumped to 16mm in New York City at any of several labs that do that work overnight. I visited one many years ago. The station was the former WNEW, which is now the FOX station . The contents of the film, scene by scene, event by event, were reported in the New York City afternoon newspapers referring to that day's broadcast, which was 11/26/63. The film still exists (in private hands) and is identical to the version that has been seen since then.
dgh01: as I told Gary in a email early yesterday: do a side by side comparison of the camera original - with the 16mm bumped version that "aired" add what was previewed last year -- and let us mere mortals judge for ourselves - you has enough gofer's to assign the task! Your making an excellent parrot Mr. Peter's, have YOU done any research lately? You see Mr. Peter's we have "only" someones word as to what aired in Nov '63.
We now know the Muchmore 8mm film was bumped to 16 mm film immediately in NYC - a while ago a debate raged on other forum's 'whether the 8mm Z-film could of been bumped to 16mm'. May be inconsequential to YOU, to other's that disagree with your non- alteration "assumptions", just another link in the chain...
----------------
Likewise, the Nix film is well documented, especially in regard to the Saturday, 11/30 football game. The film wasn't taken out of the camera until late that night and was processed the next day. Jack White even has a copy of the very newspaper that reports the score of that Saturday night game.
dgh01: oh dear - now, Jack White is convienent, roflmao!...
David Healy
-
I do think your right Jack - appears a few of these dudes are the European version of "Wee Willie Miller and the Wannabees". I'll be gone soon -- they can prop each other up with their endless debates about nonsense... Wonder how much Mr. Peter's paid for the franchise :-)
David Healy
No disresrespect to John Simkin, who seems to bea wonderful fellow...but after reading JFK postings
on this forum for several weeks now, it is obvious
that the forum has been hijacked by several provocateurs
who make the MAJORITY of the postings, most of them
nonsensical. These characters seem to be straight
from central casting at Warner Brothers LOONY TOONS
department. I have seen this same disruptive pattern
many times before. One can only conclude that this
behavior is initiated by some organized entity with
a motive for protecting the official myth of JFK's death.
The modus operandi is identical each time. They present
NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH but rely on quoting others
who have been discredited. They make absurd and
outlandish claims without offering proof. Dumber
than Elmer Fudd.
Jack White
-
Having said that I need to emphasize that Miller´s findings do not prove the authenticity of the film. There are many more issues still to be resolved and many of the points in the rebuttal of the book TGZFH did not impress me. Bill Greer´s rapid head turn was however one of those good rebuttals they made and I believe this issue is now settled.
Ville,
Thanks for your interest in this film and photo alteration subject. I look forward to having someone to help think through the findings that Miller and others came up with for I have reviewed each and every aspect of the critique on Lancer and I didn't find a single flaw in it.
dgh01: not a single flaw? Not even Miller can sell that to those on the Lancer forum, let alone anywhere else... oh-boy, what do we have here?
[...]
I believe it has been shown time and time again that no one could have possibly known what to alter on the Zapruder film because no one could be sure who all had filmed the assassination or that all those who did film JFK's murder had turned copies of their films in. I know Marie Muchmore walked out of the plaza with her film immediately after the assassination and it wasn't until the 25th of November that she sold it to UPI without the film even being developed. UPI then flew it to NY and had it shown on TV for the public to see. The Feds never found out Muchmore's film existed until after it was aired on television. Orville Nix was another example where he carried his film pout of the plaza, as well and didn't have it developed until the 30th of November. Orville made the mistake of turning in the camera original in my opinion, but he did keep a 1st generation copy in his control. So these are just of examples of what occurred which would have surely been detrimental for exposing any alterations being done to the Zapruder film.
dgh01: I suspect competent scientific researchers will correct errors made by Dr. John Costella, Dr. David Mantik - David Lifton, etc ... Someone on the OTHER side of the alteration argument needs to provide PROOF of a clean *chain of evidence* summary regarding the alledged Z-film and 3 optical film prints of. Till then all I'm seeing and hearing is a bad remake of a GERALDO show -- lot's of OPINION, rumor, ennuendo...
Muchmore? Eh, At the time TV stations did NOT air film in the 8mm format, it has to be bumped to 16mm. Who in New York Citydid that, and where is that film? Guess what? Any film in the 16mm format is a **prime** candidate for alteration. Did the TV station have a "air check tape recorded" that show's us the EXACT Muchmore film that was aired? What NYC - TV station aired the segment, how many times was the segment aired and over the course of how many day's did it air... Devil's in the details Mr. Peter's. Miller can't support the contention that Muchmore's film was aired on ANY TV station. When he or you provide the material above, you'll have my attention and other's till then...
--------------
The bottom line is the people in power behind the conspiracy didn't need to alter the films and risk being caught.
dgh01: bottom line is the people behind the conspiracy murdered a sitting President of the United States, they'd do ANYTHING to avoid capture and have avoided same for 40 years - they're very good at their game...
---------------
From the evidence I have seen - the idea was to take control of the body of evidence,
dgh01: what evidence have you seen, touched and evaluated...?
David Healy
claim to have reviewed and fill a report and then lock it away until everyone who could contradict any of it was now dead and buried. It was the work of Harold Weisberg in his legal battles to have the assassination records released that poked holes in the dam and eventually caused the flood gates to open.
-
and others with interest.
Here you go Mr. Peter's,
Few hours early... but, what the hay!
Hope the included link helps clarify and answers some of those nagging questions you might have, big waste of time to debate something you nor I can prove of disprove, unless of course you have access to films and photo's [for verification purposes] of the JFKassassination that we MERE mortals do not have - Here's a great a starting point for your OWN, original research. This field has so little of that, original research - it's a shame. Plenty of debunker's though, screaming Nellies if you will!
So try out the site, you'll find the GANG'S responses to TGZFH, guess it was around early October '03 that the heat rose, they got a early start on us, evidently a manuscript of the book made the rounds, it was originally sent to Dr. Cyril Wecht, the Patholigist for comments somehow or other Tink Thompson got hold of it, there was a big flap, really messy. [Welcome to the big leagues regarding the Assassination of a sitting US President] Same kind of stuff beginning here -- slam Jack White and his research -- yadada, yadada, yadada!
So: here it is - been there since November '03, surprised your search engine had difficulty finding it!
http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/
Full index and opening explanations [of what HOAX is - for those that don't have the book] re: the responses to the gang's challenges and comments, then presenter by presenter answers regarding what was challenged and most interesting what was NOT challenged - on the same Main page you'll find hyperlinks to the Gangs website that was set up for immediate attack after the release of HOAX. Most of it is/was nonsense, with the exception of Ron. He's a worthy opponent.
All presenters, present and accounted for with the exception of Roland Zavada, a shame he backed out on the eve of the May 2003 together at the University of Minnesota.
Now is the time to get educated Mr. Peter's.
Most of us, this side of the aisle, took the time to understand the breadth of the situation. Hopfully you'll do the same! One thing is for sure, we do know if one has understanding of basic film/photo composing techniques. And speak with some authority - you have ANY science in your background? Physics perhaps? Optics generally, Optical Film printers specifically?
For the lurkers with interest in this fascinating subject, I invite you to peruse the website via the included link (http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/) - a wealth of knowledge regarding the film/photo side of this tragedy can be obtained there -- Dr. John Costella writes so the layman can understand quite easily, he is a teacher after all, a great one in fact! He's also a member of your forum AND my home forum, JFKResearch.com under the auspices of Rich DellaRosa, also a great researcher.
Questions? Drop me a e-mail through this forum, reasonable requests will be forwarded to the appropriate author, whether the answer is another story, but most of the book's contributors find the time to respond to other contributors fowarded queries -- or, just come by http://www.jfkresearch.com
If I've offended any forum member with my comments to Mr. Peter's, I apologize. Unfortunately I have a tough time with parrots of misinformation - we've dealt with hundred's of them, I'm sorry to see one appear here, there will be more. This is a controversial subject, the photos and films add another layer to the controversy, it will not - however, go away!
Here it is again: http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/ (ALL hyper-links are on the main page, even mine - buy the book, ALL proceeds that I'm aware of go back to the research community)
Best regard's to ALL,
David Healy
-
dgh04: Mr. Peter's -- evidently you can't find the website where your questions about JFK related photos/films discussed in TGZFH are debated. I use to call it the dueling WEBSITE bake off.... Not to worry I'll post the URL for you, you may then witness what *real* PHOTO researchers have to say about the subject. Both Pro and Con -- you know any of the following folks...
Joe Durnavich - Louis Girdler - James Gordon - Ron Hepler - Barb Junkkarinen - Craig Lamson - Dave Perry - Josiah Thompson - David Wimp. Ready for an education on the subject matter? If not you will...
--------------------
Mr. Healy - you are speaking in favor of the film and photo alteration claims called into question from TGZFH. Because you are saying the critique Miller did is in error, some of which has been presented here without you offering one shred of a rubutal, I assume you know why the claims of film alteration are accurate, so please start telling us what they are. Would you like for me to go fetch another claim and see if it may be one you can actually address?
dgh05: thanks Mr. Peter's, I thought you might know one of the above select photo researchers. Why is info so difficult to attain from some of these "preservers of history"? How's the weather in Scotland?
The URL will be up at Midnight US - PDT, have a nice weekend!
David Healy
----------
-
dgh03: nope, no time for "The thing is ..." might you post some of those poorly though out Zapruder alteration claims and correct the errors of the alteration proponents right here ----->
you really, really NEED to read up on this subject Mr. Peter's -- hacking away at Jack White who quite frankly has little to say regarding Z-film alteration debate misses the mark -- your looking for ME, Dr. John Costella and Dr. David Mantik and David Lifton. Having Gary Mack prop you up is, well let's just say your losing credibility with each post...in short, you need a little help, your in over your head champ--
Mr. Healy - Your memory must be very short for I did start posting the errors mentioned in TGZFH and not once did you address any of them. Now your talking as if you know nothing about my doing this. On page 3 and 4 of this thread there were examples being presented showing Mr. White's mistakes and this is what you said ...
dgh04: nah, well maybe just a little - when you reach my age, memory -- eh, you know. I will admit: developing a short fuse for disinformationists, propogandists and deceivers, though. You know, the folks that CAN'T handle "research" that perhaps, is contrary to their **PET** beliefs. You know the kind?
---------------------
dgh: What you don't realize Mr. Peter's: Jack White has recognized his mistakes and moved on.
Now you are talking like you want them all posted again. Maybe if you'd start addressing them one by one, then we can go through a process of elimination to see if there are any that can stand under their own weight.
dgh04: Mr. Peter's -- evidently you can't find the website where your questions about JFK related photos/films discussed in TGZFH are debated. I use to call it the dueling WEBSITE bake off.... Not to worry I'll post the URL for you, you may then witness what *real* PHOTO researchers have to say about the subject. Both Pro and Con -- you know any of the following folks...
Joe Durnavich - Louis Girdler - James Gordon - Ron Hepler - Barb Junkkarinen - Craig Lamson - Dave Perry - Josiah Thompson - David Wimp. Ready for an education on the subject matter? If not you will...
--------------------
Here is another example of your stonewalling ...
dgh04: your going to need some help, I'd suggest you get in touch with Bill Miller a self provclaimed expert, however he does use Photoshop from what I can gather, you'll need some expertise in the software when we get underway, you'll also need the book TGZFH...
------------
dgh01: there we go again -- Mr White this, Mr. White that -- if you can't post the photographic evidence supporting your accusations re Jack White here, please post them to a website so ALL of us can review what material your basing your criticisms on.
You were then given a web address that contains the detailed analysis of those claims and this is how you dealt with it ...
Gimme something tangible to take to the media Mr. Peter's - BMiller's material doesn't pass muster-- How long will it be till your presentations are available?
Your right, there's no need to spend a single second more dealing with this nonsense -- a complete waste of my not to mention this forums time, so Larry say hello to Debra and Bill Miller for me, have a nice summer... and lighten up on Jack White -- we're the last of photog's that know what their talking about.
So far you have done nothing but post rhetoric. You now ask to post what's wrong with the claims - go back in this thread and choose one and we'll get started testing them.
dgh04: nope just warming up - stay tuned!
----------------
dgh03: nonsense..... the below is stock -n- trade JFK research disinformation, *late comer*, haven;t heard this one for ages -- I suspect this came to Mr. Peter's via e-mail from the 6th Floor Museum recently, REAL recently. I suspect Mr. Peter's has NEVER viewed the Nix film... and the beat goes on!
My understanding is that the information originally came from the Nix family. Gary Mack called and spoke directly to the Nix family. He has since known them for over 20 years and Orville Nix Jr. and Gayle (the granddaughter of Orville Sr.) are still alive and you are invited to contact them yourself like any researcher can do for verification as to what's been said here.
dgh04:I should hope he continues to communicate with 'film owner' -- the film/photo collection at the Museum is extensive and under Gary purview, so I suspect are film/photo copyright holder PA's, quotes and comments - a job he does well, I might add.
------------------
-
Thank you very much for your post - might I download this to my desktop, read again then respond when I have the appropriate time?
David Healy
Producer - Director
Great Zapruder Film Hoax LINK for Mr. Peter's...
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted