David G. Healy

evidently you selectively snip: read Mr. Peter's -- Jack White and I were not put on this earth to become playthings for a few select WCR supporters -- your not much of a CT'er, but you'll grow into it... below is the part Mr. Peter's evidently forgot to read [from earlier in the thread]: ================ Peters: Not a one of them contributors have addressed the critique of their claims. So we don't need guts, but rather evidence that stands up on it's own legs. dgh01: Mr. Peter's perhap's your internet searches has failed to find the one and only website created for answers re: TGZFH contributors responses to ALL those critics questioning the theses put forward in TGZFH. I might add, we did create quite a stir on the established JFK boards. So much so, a advisarial team of NOTED researchers (of the non Z-film alteration persuasion) questioned the contributors, US - our responses were posted to the internet site, within hours -- guess what? Only the peanut gallery continues the attack. Who do they attack? Jack White of course! Those of us who participate in serious study of the DPlaza films don't pay much attention to those around the world that demand responses to elementary questions that have been answered endlessly months, years and sometimes MANY years ago. Check out the website, I'm SURE you have the URL's -- let us know what you think, all reasonable comments will be taken under advisement -- [added: the link is NOT available on LANCER] -------------------- If Jack White is right 1/10th of the time -- then LHOswald did NOT act alone - there was a conspiracy to commit the murder of a sitting US president - that ain't taking the "low" road Mr. Peter's, it's just pissed off US citizens wanting to know what happened that day in Dealey Plaza... Peters: Please try and stay focused here. We have not been discussing whether Oswald acted alone. I think most, if not all CT's like myself believe that more than one person was involved in the assassination of JFK. This thread and my post have been about the evidence concerning photo and film alteration, which has nothing to do with Lee Oswald. dgh01: Mr. Peter's, I am focused, you'll pardon me if I 'might' question your sincerity regarding your CT status, many wolves in sheep clothing around this investigation, lot's of people want to write books you know :-) You seem to have forgot the real premise of this research, was there a conspiracy to assassinate the JFK [a then sitting Presidenbt of the USofA]. Were the films and photos of said event changed (as many believe) in ANY manner to cover up what (many believe) happened that day in November -- pretty simple concept, actually. And for me? Years ago, I could careless if the film was altered - a non starter. My interest was aroused because of folks like yourself, and the endless attacks (some quite personal) of those doing the research, in this case, Z-film researchers who deal/dealt with alteration scenarios of ANY photo/film having to do with the assassination... AGENDA'S abound... And the beat goes on.....

[snip] Mr. Healy - you have been invited several times to address any of the critiques of White's claims and you have chosen not to do so, but rather you have taken the low road and just acted like it's not worth discussing. Then you post some dribble about provocateur's and instigators, which seems to be all you have been doing in the past several replies you have placed on this thread. Please try and stay focused and explain what is wrong in the critque Miller laid out. If it is so wrong, then you should have no trouble proving your position. If I have misread Miller's critique, then I want someone to show me where he erred because it is worth my time to know about it. Mr. Peter's, my take is printed in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax - hardly the LOW road as you put it -- out there for the whole world to see and judge, I eagerly await your contribution - [a note to the lurkers: the whole presentation from the book can be found at JFKResearch.com. My presentation in HOAX [with additional imagery and full text edit] will be donated to this forum if JSimkin requests said. I've been dealing with closed minds and those with agenda's for what seems like years and years concerning this subject, most seem like normal rational well educated folks -- they just can't get their arms around the following concept -- they all parrot with one voice: it's impossible, the government can't/didn't lie to us... well, sorry Virgina, they can and DID! You've got 3 contributors to HOAX on this forum, Mr. Peter's -- when are you going to get serious and attack the science and cinematography regarding the murder evidence -- we don't need Moorman, Marsh, Miller or Gary Mack! We need gut's! If Jack White is right 1/10th of the time -- then LHOswald did NOT act alone - there was a conspiracy to commit the murder of a sitting US president -that ain't taking the "low" road Mr. Peter's, it's just pissed off US citizens wanting to know what happened that day in Dealey Plaza... For that matter LHOswald may of been what he claimed himself to be a "patsy" we'll leave that to the next generation historians, most of today's historians were asleep at the wheel regarding this issue Your deal! David Healy p.s. I spoke to Gary Mack today, evidently he hasn't read the 2nd pronting of HOAX, bet he has by now...your name never came up :-)

If the information on the web is accurate, then Marsh also did his study long before MPI worked on the Zapruder film.dgh01: not seeking an answer thanks - ground plowed years ago So that makes at least 4 studies... To the best of my knowledge, none of these studies agree on what Z-frame relates to the Moorman 5 Polaroid. You'd think a seamless comparision of ALL the DPlaza films would be available, but it's not! Actually the timing of Moorman's photo is not all that difficult to follow in my opinion. The Zapruder film, regardless which scaled version one uses, has to have Hargis advance to a point that his back is west of the view from Zapruder to Moorman. At Z315, Hargis is still slightly overlapping part of Moorman, which is not what is seen in Moorman's number 5 Polaroid. By Z316, Hargis has advanced too far west. That means that Moorman took her photo between Z315 and Z316. dgh01: In thew street or the grass? LOL! I can see where you can arrive at that, it's normal -- however from my standpoint -- I can't verify that the extant Z-film is indeed the camera original - without that -- it's ALL background noise! Or as Harold Wiesberg use to say -- a Whitewash! Where'd the .6 come from, there can be NO six tenths of a frame - that's impossible! One can divide anything up into any denomination they choose. Numbers like 4/8, 1/2, 9/18 are all the same amount. Take a calculator and convert 6/10s into 18ths if you'd rather hear the answer presented in 1/18th segments. It appears that Marsh divided the diatance Hargis traveled between frames Z315/316 into 1/10 segments. He then calculated the position of each 1/10th forward advance against Moorman and found that at the 6/10s mark Hargis had cleared Moorman so not to be blocking any part of her from Zapruder's view. dgh01: Might want to have Tony update his material -- I queried him earlier today on the big board, as to updates or a new analysis - he hasn't answered there are none on his website... Unfortunately in the film business a frame is a frame is a FRAME, not 6/10's of a frame. Therefore it's either 315 or 316, yes? Today with NTSC based imagery interlaced each frame is broken down into 2 fields [upper and lower], get's to be a real mess, a REAL mess. That's why I like, film provenece, who, what, when, where and why of the image[ry] discussed - when someone tells me these things my stomach settles down, it's like maybe this person actually knows what they're talking about. Of course IF you believe the Z-film is altered then the numbers are meaningless -- you are aware of when the frame numbers were 1st made public? If Mary Moorman was in the street for he infamous Polaroid A L L bets are off ... hence: the endless street/grass debate... If your going to post data of this type Mr. Peter's, it would be nice to get ALL the known fact's related to these studies out there -- so reasonable people can make reasonable decisions... If one demonstrates that 2+2=4 ... why would they have to post where others took 2+2 and got 5 or 2+2 and got 44? The approach Marsh took is sensible and easy to follow - if of course you are one of those reasonable people. dgh01: That's a problem isn't it? Do we know the others are wrong, if so WHY are they wrong and why is Tony correct, if your just trying to sell Tony's approach and discount the others, hey -- have at it! He's taken a beating on the boards that past few years, inaccuracies abound, but he keeps on trucking! What about the Miller-Gordon study, it might STILL be on the Lancer website. You on the USA side of the pond? If not I suspect you have no inkling about NTSC interlaced imagery 30fps or 29.97fps - you deal in PAL imagery 25fps [progressive scan] David Healy <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about Gary Mack's study? Bill Miller and James Gordon's near recent study? Much more recent than Tony's study. Or, is Tony's study more recent and based on MPI imagery?If MPI imagery was used, it's inaccurate, you realize that don't you? SCALED wrong. Incorrect frame scaling plays havoc when making these kind of measuremnts. Is this Marsh study the one done in the early 1990's or was that Clint Bradford's study, he did one too? So that makes at least 4 studies... To the best of my knowledge, none of these studies agree on what Z-frame relates to the Moorman 5 Polaroid. You'd think a seamless comparision of ALL the DPlaza films would be available, but it's not! Tony's trying, bless his heart, but Z315.6? Where'd the .6 come from, there can be NO six tenths of a frame - that's impossible! Evidently - Tony Marsh found a magic bullet [sort of speak] If your going to post data of this type Mr. Peter's, it would be nice to get ALL the known fact's related to these studies out there -- so reasonable people can make reasonable decisions... David Healy

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. Less than 18 months interest in the JFK Assassination photo's and films and you've got it figured out -- amazing Larry, simply amazing. And to think: I haven't seen ONE image you've created, ABSOLUTELY amazing... btw, one can feel your angst all the way out here in good old Northern California... David Healy p.s. I like Jack White have found it necessary NOT to deal with propagandists and provocateurs, life is too short -- in case your not aware of the definition --- Provocateur-Instigator = Function: noun Definition: provoker Synonyms: advocate, agent, champion, demagogue, disrupter, dissident, dogmatist, firebrand, fireman, fomenter, hatchet man, heretic, incendiary, inciter, instigator, mover, needle man, propagandist, provocateur, pusher, reaction, reformer, revisionist, ringleader, sparkplug, zealot AND a "wolf" in sheep's clothing!

Jack White says something, you say something else -- Nobody, I mean NOBODY can identify Zapruder or Sitzman as the person on that pedestal, in any of the film or still photos. That includes Gary Mack, as he told me on more than one ocassion ... He and a thousand others (such as you) can tell us what you've been told, but none of you can prove to us that: YES indeed that's good ole Abe Zapruder, I can see his face, that's him [or the same, for Sitzman]

Mr. Healy, preserving history has nothing to do with the mistakes being addressed here. For instance, if Mr. White has said in the past that the Altgens 6 photograph was sent out on the news wire within the hour of the assassination taking place and it could not have been faked, then it showing Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the grass speaks volumes and is just one step in showing Mr. White had erred. The problem isn't if someone could have altered a photo, but are the claims being made to show alteration justified. When White misreads two film frames and then thinks Mrs. Franzen has grown in height due to fakery - is it not right to point out why that occurred and to show that it didn't really have anything to do with film alteration? dgh: What you don't realize Mr. Peter's: Jack White has recognized his mistakes and moved on. Only his severest critics stay the course - and for WHAT gain, praytell? Well, some of us know the answer and it stinks... I'm not sure what you meant by 'taking Jack on', unless you are referring to those who in the past have pointed out Mr. White's errors only to be booted from the forum Jack resided on. dgh: are you one opf those perhaps? Or just another one of those parrots that imitates those that reside on the Other forum? Outside of there - he has never done more than what has been shown here. dgh: evidently your new to this game As far as Mr. Costella goes - the last I read on him was he had first said Moorman was in the street, then he changed it to her being out of the street and eventually decided she was back in the street. Can we assume he used the same laws of Physics each time? dgh: Gosh, here we are discussing Physics, maybe you should visit his website and tell us what you think - post contrary findings and show us your analytical film expertise - delve right on into the forensics of the Zapruder film -- Roland Zavada can't do it, maybe you can? What does he think about Jean Hill's interview on Black Op Radio where she was asked specifically about where she was and when when JFK came down Elm Street and she replied she stepped into the street when the limo rounded the corner onto Elm, but was back in the grass when the shooting started? dgh: tell you what, maybe he'll answer this question for you, who knows - IF you'll answer this one... Evidently there's a piece of videotape that captures a little coaxing of a certain person present in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination [got to do with the Mary Moorman controversy] see pg's 420-422 Great Zapruder Film Hoax - David Lifton has gone public with this, what do you think? Why would someone want to convince Mary where she was and WHEN she was there? Strange goings on I'd say. So believe it or not - Mr. Costella can and does make mistakes. dgh: and man enough to admit it, just like Jack White... further that: so do you, Mr. Peter's, make mistakes that is - so do you! I also think you have misstated what Josiah Thompson as repeatedly said. Thompson said that none of the assassination films contradict one another, not that they could all be made into a seamless film. None of which has anything to do with the claims Mr. White has made concerning film and photo fakery. dgh: Well, having been a participant in those discussions, debates, arguments I think you might want to re-consult with Dr. Tink. The DP "seamless films", was BMiller's LANCER mantra for a bit (actually I think it's a great idea, so'd Miller and here we are 3.5 years later, no comparison film/video, WHY?), it's the crux of the argument against Z-film alteration and the Moorman5 Polaroid is dead center in the controversy... in short, it has lot's to do concerning film and photo fakery. Have you forgot so soon the fact that JackW initiated the Moorman5 on the Street/Grass issue on JFK Research forum? I suspect there are those here that would answer legitimate questions posed about possible photograph and film fakery... the atmosphere and climate however, have to change. In any case the alteration issue won't go away, the best the non-film/photo alteration camp can come up with? Discredit Jack White! A very sad state of affairs... David Healy

Sure sounds like a reincarnation of Bill Miller, Mr. Peters? Tell you what, let me make a request, one YOU might fill - that BM said he'd do, some 3 years ago. Got to do with Dr. Tink and his seamless Dealey Plaza film quote from a few years back. He or someone from the 'Miller attack Jack White at every turn goon squad', was gonna produce the 4 assassinatiuon DP films into 1 film and show US just how SEAMLESS they *really* are, for film frame comparison purposes ONLY! Slight problem - BM, or the Tinkster never produced it! Why, I leave that to the readers to determine. However, it is reasonable to assume, they DON'T match! Could you do this comnparison for us? I'm not surprised to see this sort of grilling of going on -- plenty have tried, eh Jack? I'm beginning to think some have made it a career to take on Jack White! Guess they're too scared to take on Dr. John Costella's and his Physics in relationship to the Z-film? Or is this the same such nonsense that's been floated on forums before, that of: "preserving current history"? How 'bout you Mr. Peter's? or is it Bill Miller, James Gordon? :-) David Healy

What? Is it any wonder why this unsolved murder has languished for 40 years. False evidence everywhere and your looking for a PhD. David Healy

Shall we assume you'll disclose your expertise as a photographic *expert*? David Healy

ahh, ONE that pinned ALL his JFK Assassination theories on the validity of the Z-film -- "There was absolutely no time in the chain of possession for this incredible amount of sinsister alterations to occur. " dgh: NONSENSE btw, incredible amount? Based on the statement you must have an idea of what might of been done to the film, yes? "And none of the proponents of alteration have ever been able to come up with WHERE and with what type of equipment this magical feat was performed." dgh: NONSENSE [again] do your self a favor [educate yourself before you really embarass yourself] read Jim Fetzer's Great Zapruder Film HOAX. Maybe Bradford can show us some of his optical film printing expertise and explain who Lynwood Dunne is and what he (Dunne) means to the "type" of equipment he's (Bradford) seeking that can perform what HE (Bradford) thinks is *magical*... rofl David Healy

Welcome home guy... David Healy MAAG-Vietnam 1963-64

My name is David G. Healy, a resident of two places, Northern California [Lake Tahoe vicinity] and Las Vegas, Nevada. I'm most curious as to why some folks go absolutely bonkers when the "possibility" of Zapruder film alteration comes up. As for teaching? None organized - over the course of my career, much by example. I've led many seminars over the years dealing with application [hands on] techniques in my chosen profession -- that of, broadcast media Cameraman for both film and television. During the past 20 or so years I've spent a considerable amount of time in the specialized 'post production' field of "compositing". I enjoy thinking "out-of-the-box" - interested in NEW ideas and horrible punctuation.

Speaking of which, some "respected" JFK Assassination related film researchers stated 3, perhaps 4 years ago: "... the seamlessness of the Dealey Plaza assassination films..." So seamless they'd [respected JFK assassination film researchers] create a model showing such, so they said - well, we've been waiting 4 years. Will it EVER materialize? BTW, the term "seamless" comes from those associated in some fashion with the 6th Floor museum in Dallas, Texas. It wasn't Gary Mack. Guess these latter day Z-film experts can't quite get today's computer software up and running. Up and running to the point of demonstrating, or getting the 4 primary assassination films on a single screen at the SAME time, in frame accurate**sync**, with the alledged Zapruder camera original. How's this for a scenario, if they DID get them in sync, and the Moorman 5 photo didn't jibe with the 4 films, maybe? What kind of havoc would THAT create? Makes one wonder, WHY can't this simple (with today's software and computer) demonstration be done? In today's 'lingo' the technique is called (matte - special effects terminology) "quad split". Maybe the films aren't quite as seamless as were being led to believe, or at least TOLD to believe. Then again, you know all this, don't you Martin? Not *one* person presently commenting from the NON-Zapruder film alteration aspect of this murder has EVER reviewed SMPE [society of Motion Picture Engineers] or SMPTE [society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers] documentation as to what is/was possible in the art of film special effects cinematography circa 1963 - 1964. SMPE was created in 1915. In 1915 its first order of business was to set US industry standards for 35mm film. SMPE/SMPTE has published a monthly journal covering ALL aspects, including technological advances of the artform in Cinematic Film for 80+ years. Today, any second year film student knows of proper matte techniques required to do the job. Including sophisticated matte techniques. For that matter the recently released [few years back] MPI Z-film [DVD version], the Z-film was altered yet AGAIN, for our viewing comfort and enjoyment, of course. -- Every computer assisted fix done on the MPI DVD version of the Z-film was createdable in 1963 on film optical printers, and THEN some. Only the naive think it was impossible to alter the Z-film in 1964. An intertesting question to ask oneself: WHEN was the last time the Zapruder camera original film was 'laced' up on a projector and projected? Did the Warren Commission, in fact, VIEW the Zapruder film, EVER? Talk about absurdity, did the Warren Commission sit down and view the Zapruder Film? - the list goes on and on and ON -- Dr. Jim Fetzer's Z-Film Hoax should stand as *one* beacon of discontent. If the Z-film is altered, WHY is it altered? Hiding what? Many have pinned their reputations on the validity of Zapruder's film. I feel their PAIN! Some have dared question the validity of the film - those that counter queries resort to using terms such as: "absurdsity". ROFL, I wonder if they can tell me how a film projector mounted on a optical film such as the Oxberry printer feeds film; top to bottom; bottom to top; or both? David G. Healy

It's NOT a big problem -- all the jaw jack'in is quite frankly over, certifying that Moorman5 happened at Z313. Of course no one can agree on the exact frame as attested by the 3 studies completed over the years. Might be 312, 313, 314,315, up to 319 -- some think the 3rd hit happened as late as what should be 358. Right where the Secret Service/FBI said it should be. That of course was when the 3 shot - 3 hit scenario was in vogue. Then, of course the Tague situation developed -- the SBT was born, the rest is history. the so-called historians were and for the most part, NOW - asleep at the wheel on this one... Thank GOD for the HWeisberg's, DLifton's, JFetzer's RDellaRosa's of the world. Glad to see you here Marcel! David G. Healy [waiting for Martin Schackelford to chime in]