David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
dgh01: ah, yes the timeline, the real question is, WHO's time line? I suspect the Z-film would never make into a court of law, seeing that the chain of evidence was/is broken... -- we're racheting it up a notch, I see... I suggest for those that care - take a look at TGZFH -- asking so called film "experts" that have NO knowledge of optical film printing special effects [which were available in 1963] is a step forward, I guess. However I know off NO public comment made by Robert Ryan [further that, what was a "film technology dude looking at the Z-film for -- that's like Roland Zavada telling me how a optical printer works -- he doesn't know -- great at film properties, but doesn't know squat about film effects] stating he changed his mind. OR for that matter TRASK! As for TRASK, will you make available his bonifides? First time Great at amassing a database of JFK Assassination film/photos, but can he tell me or you what makes up a composite? I seriously doubt, but go ahead refer to him as a film expert...
My understanding is that both Zavada and Ryan knew that if the images seen on the alleged camera original were not authentic, then there would be visible signs they could look for. When these men looked for these tell-tale signs, they could not find a single one. So unless I misunderstood Gary Mack, it appears that it wasn't a matter of anyone not being able to alter a film as much as if they had there would have been signs left behind showing it and they didn't find any such signs.
dgh02: that may well be your understanding - the question is/was: What were they looking for, I know, do you know? Might want to check out Raymond Fielding's Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1965, plenty of footnotes and references to SMPE/SMPTE articles reviewing, defining, discussining the art of optical film effects. The book was updated again in 1985 (?) - I understand Fielding may still teaches at the University level in Florida. Roland Zavada spoke to him sometime in 2003, I believe the summer of 2003. Guess we generated enough interest in the subject to get HIS interest.
I suspect you did not misunderstand Gary Mack, his problem with this issue may be: the "possible" expertise employed in doing such a "matte" job. One knowing how to employ mattes in the correct manner - leaves no trace!
--------------
btw, what test made up this "inspection" of the Z-film? The one that Trask and company performed, in fact: what did they find that told them the film was NOT altered? The boy's just lay out the film on the light table and discuss timelines? Roland Zavada was most interested in my take on the time line -- we discussed it while he was out west for a SMPTE meeting a few weeks ago.
I cannot comment on what interest Zavada may or may not have concerning you and your take. I was left with the impression in an earlier post that my name had not come up in a conversation you had had with Gary Mack. I took that to mean that you had spoken to Mr. Mack personally. I have since heard through another researcher that the two of you had recently communicated by email only. So I am now aware that some things being said here can easily be misstated or at the very least - misunderstood. Because you can email Mr. Gary Mack directly and ask him the questions you've raised here ... why not do so and post the response you get back so there will be no confusion as to what was said. I for one would be interested in knowing what other information Gary Mack may have to share on this matter
dgh02: wow, a researcher friend told a friend Gary said..... listen Mr. Peter's, Gary Mack and I have communicated on various ocassions, specifically by e-mail -- we share some geographical ties, he's in the media, as well as I -- we differ in our opinion regarding the handling and usage of the alledged camera original Zapruder Film - the reason why he's talking with anyone regarding this thread is quite simply: "it's his JOB, the institution that employes him cares for many JFK Assassination films, some they control copyrights for. He/they have a vested interest in what's going on when discussion of the film appear, especially on a international forum. He does NOT publicly comment on threads directly, in short he doesn't POST. Am I telling you something you don't realize. My last communication with Gary Mack had nothing to do with the Zapruder Film. And HE initiated the contact - I'm for oneNOT amazed he's in the background re: this thread!
Gary Mack and I have disputes of a professional nature. not personal. Frankly - I wouldn't want his job! My issues regarding the Z-film are well known and published in HOAX, Gary has seen and read my presentation as early as 4+ years ago, actually helped clear up a few issues. The film alteration issue can be resolved quite easily -- Give 4 or 5 film experts access to the camera original Z-film for testing. As a starter: forensic film testing to determine the density[amongst other things] of said camera original film. One can arrange for a University to host such testing.There's a few Physicist's and MD's that are quite curious as to why this hasn't been done. Roland Zavada didn't do it, WHY? Hey, he's the KODAK film properties guy!
---------------
dgh01:Cost us USofA taxpayers 16million bucks [and still counting], I think we deserve to know -- don't you Gary?
I think we deserve more direct replies to the claims of film and photo alteration, but they seem to never come.
dgh02: WHY? You a US taxpayer? Listen Mr. Peter's, may come as a surprise to you, one can't claim they/he/she says the Z-film is altered, any more than YOU can say no it's not - any more than Gary, Roland Zavada, Josiah Thompson, David Blackburst and all the rest can. Why? No one has tested it, WHY?
Hey, did you find the website where we, the contributors of HOAX responded to the nonsense coming from the Lancer crowd? I'll post it here later, under a different thread so the Lurkers hereabouts have a clean shot at seeing it --
Even I can't say the film is altered, was it possible to alter the film in 1964? "of course it was..."
---------------
I don't claim the Z-film is altered
dgh02: of course you don't - what do you claim?
David 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.....
-
In an email I sent to Gary Mack at the 6th Floor Museaum in Dealey Plaza, I asked the following -
Mr. Gary Mack,
In Jim Fetzer's book there is a section that deals with Mr. David Healy's theory over the possibility of the Zapruder film being altered. I would think that if any of this were true, then Mr. Healy would have produced some experts to support his position. What can you share with me concerning any experts other than Zavada looking at the camera original and their being able to reach a conclusion as to the films authenticity? Are there signs on the alleged original Zapruder film that an expert would know what to look for and so on and have any signs been found to date that would make one think the alleged original Zapruder film isn't the genuine artifact? Any information you may have to offer would be most appreciated.
Thanks,
Gary Macks reply is seen below:
Not a single expert in the field of motion picture special effects believes, or has noticed, any signs of alteration in the Zapruder film. Despite Oliver Stone's and some of Hollywood's top experts repeated examinations and despite the proliferation of high quality frame images, not a single expert in the field supports the alteration theory.
Larry Peters
Maybe someday Gary Mack and company will provide all the names of those "experts" - I've yet to hear but ONE name and it's been what? 4, 5, 6... years+ ?
Just more noise... rat-a-tat-tat
-------------------
At one point, film technology expert Robert Ryan's name was trotted out as one who supposedly had questions about some of the suspected alterations. But a few summers ago, Ryan examined the camera original Zapruder film at the National Archives along with many other experts in film technology and preservation. Also present was Kennedy assassination photo expert Richard Trask. According to Trask, once he made Ryan aware of the time line (something others had not done) in which any such alteration had to have been made, Ryan changed his mind and no longer supports any alteration theory.
dgh01: ah, yes the timeline, the real question is, WHO's time line? I suspect the Z-film would never make into a court of law, seeing that the chain of evidence was/is broken... -- we're racheting it up a notch, I see... I suggest for those that care - take a look at TGZFH -- asking so called film "experts" that have NO knowledge of optical film printing special effects [which were available in 1963] is a step forward, I guess. However I know off NO public comment made by Robert Ryan [further that, what was a "film technology dude looking at the Z-film for -- that's like Roland Zavada telling me how a optical printer works -- he doesn't know -- great at film properties, but doesn't know squat about film effects] stating he changed his mind. OR for that matter TRASK! As for TRASK, will you make available his bonifides? First time Great at amassing a database of JFK Assassination film/photos, but can he tell me or you what makes up a composite? I seriously doubt, but go ahead refer to him as a film expert...
btw, what test made up this "inspection" of the Z-film? The one that Trask and company performed, in fact: what did they find that told them the film was NOT altered? The boy's just lay out the film on the light table and discuss timelines? Roland Zavada was most interested in my take on the time line -- we discussed it while he was out west for a SMPTE meeting a few weeks ago.
You have my permission to pass this along to Gary -Tell Gary hello for me, I've made you day Mr. Peter's.
-----------------
Nor does anyone else who knows the full story of the Zapruder film and all the other photographic records of the assassination.
dgh01:Cost us USofA taxpayers 16million bucks [and still counting], I think we deserve to know -- don't you Gary?
------------------
David Healy
Gary Mack
-
In an email I sent to Gary Mack at the 6th Floor Museaum in Dealey Plaza, I asked the following -
Mr. Gary Mack,
In Jim Fetzer's book there is a section that deals with Mr. David Healy's theory over the possibility of the Zapruder film being altered. I would think that if any of this were true, then Mr. Healy would have produced some experts to support his position. What can you share with me concerning any experts other than Zavada looking at the camera original and their being able to reach a conclusion as to the films authenticity? Are there signs on the alleged original Zapruder film that an expert would know what to look for and so on and have any signs been found to date that would make one think the alleged original Zapruder film isn't the genuine artifact? Any information you may have to offer would be most appreciated.
Thanks,
Gary Macks reply is seen below:
Not a single expert in the field of motion picture special effects believes, or has noticed, any signs of alteration in the Zapruder film. Despite Oliver Stone's and some of Hollywood's top experts repeated examinations and despite the proliferation of high quality frame images, not a single expert in the field supports the alteration theory.
Larry Peters
Maybe someday Gary Mack and company will provide all the names of those "experts" - I've yet to hear but ONE name and it's been what? 4, 5, 6... years+ ?
Just more noise... rat-a-tat-tat
-------------------
At one point, film technology expert Robert Ryan's name was trotted out as one who supposedly had questions about some of the suspected alterations. But a few summers ago, Ryan examined the camera original Zapruder film at the National Archives along with many other experts in film technology and preservation. Also present was Kennedy assassination photo expert Richard Trask. According to Trask, once he made Ryan aware of the time line (something others had not done) in which any such alteration had to have been made, Ryan changed his mind and no longer supports any alteration theory.
dgh01: ah, yes the timeline, the real question is, WHO's time line? I suspect the Z-film would never make into a court of law, seeing that the chain of evidence was/is broken... -- we're racheting it up a notch, I see... I suggest for those that care - take a look at TGZFH -- asking so called film "experts" that have NO knowledge of optical film printing special effects [which were available in 1963] is a step forward, I guess. However I know off NO public comment made by Robert Ryan [further that, what was a "film technology dude looking at the Z-film for -- that's like Roland Zavada telling me how a optical printer works -- he doesn't know -- great at film properties, but doesn't know squat about film effects] stating he changed his mind. OR for that matter TRASK! As for TRASK, will you make available his bonifides? First time Great at amassing a database of JFK Assassination film/photos, but can he tell me or you what makes up a composite? I seriously doubt, but go ahead refer to him as a film expert...
btw, what test made up this "inspection" of the Z-film? The one that Trask and company performed, in fact: what did they find that told them the film was NOT altered? The boy's just lay out the film on the light table and discuss timelines? Roland Zavada was most interested in my take on the time line -- we discussed it while he was out west for a SMPTE meeting a few weeks ago.
You have my permission to pass this along to Gary -Tell Gary hello for me, I've made you day Mr. Peter's.
-----------------
Nor does anyone else who knows the full story of the Zapruder film and all the other photographic records of the assassination.
dgh01:Cost us USofA taxpayers 16million bucks [and still counting], I think we deserve to know -- don't you Gary?
------------------
David Healy
Gary Mack
-
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!
I think they can appreciate your saying it was possible, but the only thing you people have shown is a bunch of flawed observations for proof that it happened. When asked to address the critique concerning those observations - you make up excuses about it not being worth your time.
dgh01: "you people"? Mr. Peter's. Have we become a blight [sp.?], a thorn in the the WCR endorser's side? ROFL -- HaroldW too, was that back in 1965, I consider that GREAT company. Lest I remind you, even LBJ felt there was a conspiracy! I could keep *you* busy for the next 5 years contradicting all those that felt and not only FELT, perhaps KNEW there was a "conspiracy" to murder JFK.
What's NOT worth my time Mr. Peter's is debating with someone that knows little about the subject - especially the photographic evidence! Realize it or not, you're now being educated - pay attention, if you want respect as a researcher regarding the Zapruder and related films.If you're a hatchet guy, well, give it your best shot... Above all do *original film research*, then post it where we ALL can review it. We're out there, come and join us... Start threads here or elsewhere that ask pertinent questions about film re the JFK Assassination
-----------------
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!
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 --
--------------------
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...
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.....
----------------
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 :-)
There should not have been reason for my name to have come up. Did you ask his opinion about the critique on Lancer concerning the claims made in TGZFH? Did you ask his opinion as to the validity of the claims made in the book, itself?
dgh01: he (and many others, Dr. Josiah Thompson amongst them and the remainder of the gang of 5) are **WELL** aware of TGZFH -- btw, it was the gang of 5 questions and critiques that were addressed. Based on your query above, it appears you really haven't done your homework? Might want get focused.
Perhap's JSimkin would like to do a ONE time on-line conference with the contributors of TGZFH - he [John Simkin] being the moderator -- you up for seeing something like that happen on this forum? I'm sure I can run ithe concept by the contributors and have an answer shortly.
David Healy
-
[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 :-)
-
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.
I believe Gary Mack, Miller and Gordon have found Marsh's conclusions to be accurate.
dgh01: Believe? they have or they haven't. If so are the concessions posted where researchers can view them? One of the bad things about this nonsense - that's why I like books, you can pick it up, find a page, read the info - follow up on the footnotes....
Is this Marsh study the one done in the early 1990's or was that Clint Bradford's study, he did one too?
A simple web search may give you the answer you seek. This is what I found -
If the information on the web is accurate, then Marsh also did his study long before MPI worked on the Zapruder film.The Charles Bronson Film and the Gary Mack study of 1982/83. Ten years before the Anthony Marsh study, Gary Mack undertook a study of the Moorman #5 photograph.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
-
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!
-
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...
Really, I must have misunderstood Mr. White when he said, "I made no mistakes ....."
dgh01: not the first time nor will it be the last time someone has misunderstood Jack White, or me for that matter -- JWhite doesn't deal with provocateurs any longer and has made that quite clear. Which I'm sure you understand, don't you? He has made no mistakes on many pieces he's done, on other's he's conceded error, so what? If it stymies your search for the truth, cut out on your own and let's see your stuff... Why waste time pouring over JWhite's material - if you don't agree with him!
dgh: evidently your new to this game
It may be a game to you, but not to me. Many of us want to know the truth based on the facts and we want those facts to be tested and validated.
dgh01: pretty much the stock-n-trade answer, I expected no less --
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.
What you have implied is nonsense in my opinion because both Hill and Moorman have said they were in the grass, not only on the day of the assassination, but since then in various interviews. What the film alterationsist seems to do is try and dismiss what the actual witnesses have said and then when a film or photograph is shown to support that witness, they claim the witnesses were coached and the films and photos must all be faked. Someone like Mr. White will say a photograph went on the news wire immediately after the assassination, so it must be genuine and later on when it is shown to disprove a claim he had made - it then is called a fake. I find that type of behavior to be the strangest of all.
dgh01: hey man, I didn't imply it, I asked the question -- David Lifton wrote it, if you need his email address I can provide it -- he's a nice guy -- brooks no nonesense and responds to reasonable questions... Some things are just a little difficult to get your hands and mind around aren't they? Bring you lunch if you want to debate with him...
It's amazing, a 'certain' researcher gathers *more* information about a specific subject then changes his/her mind regarding the earlier conclusion, then makes it public -- sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not you? Then others make vague accusations about same researcher - that vague accusation is of course he doesn't know what he's speaking of. A waffler, in this case a poor researcher.... Kind of like real life waffeling regarding WAR and Weapons of Mass Destruction and the reason nations go to WAR, without the serious consequences of course. We all know about that one!
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 believe Mr. White has implied just the opposite. And yes, we all make mistakes. The difference between some of us is that we want to be accurate in our observations by having them explored and tested. Others seem to be more concerned about egos.
dgh01: Nonesense, I doubt you can tell me what Jack White's photographic credentials are. Observations are just that, observations, those that don't approve, should make their own photo anaylasis graphics regarding the subject, then sell it to the rest of us -- till them it's just more noise from the uninformed peanut gallery... If you bought the book HOAX and didn't like what you read, see if you can get a refund...sell it on EBay!
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 was not around in them days to know when he initiated his Moorman claims. All I can say is they have since been proven to be in error.
dgh01: well, those day's happened about 18 - 24 months ago - what praytell, has proven been in error - and more importantly, WHO proved them to be in error? First I've heard the news. I'm sure a few Physicist's will be more than interested in seeing the data... The only thing proven that I can see, is your NEW to the game! You'll catch on!
dhg: 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...
Mr. White discredited himself in my opinion when he became so arrogant that he thought he could make off the cuff observations and not have anyone question his claims. He discredited himself when he made arguments that the witnesses must be wrong and all the films and photographs taken on 11/22/63 must be faked when they didn't show what he felt they should. Now this thread has been a debate by example and detailing the claims of film alteration. Mr. White said he would answer any questions and address his work. It would be nice if you would do the same and try and be as specific about it as some of us are trying to be.
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. A few notations, explanations and pedigree of photo'syou post might be interesting too.
I will leave you with some things James fetzer said about Jack White's claim in TGZFH ...
dgh01: Well aware of whats in the book Mr. Peter's, help do a little work in it myself. Having never seen ANY of the debated original photography, Z-film included I find myself pondering a question, if I haven't seen and you've never seen ANY of the original film/photo how can you paint with such a broadstroke - stating that Jack White needs to be discreditied? Might you know, what many of us know about Jack and what he's seen and not seen? 35+ years of dealing with this murder certainly accounts for something, doesn't it? 50 years as a photographer has a little bit of leverage I'd say -- can you say the same?
Go to HOAX and take a look at Jack'simages and discussion. His work has to be appreciated for what
it is: pilot studies that focus our attention on features that
are odd in the photographic record.
The tide knowing when to come in and go out is an oddity, but it certainly has nothing to do with the universe being hoaxed in any way. It's a matter of understanding why we see what we do. In Mr. White's case he had sat out to look for every oddity he could find and refer to it as proof of a film hoax. Those around him never bothered to tell him his mmistakes. It was a classic case of the emperor that he had no clothes. Let me share some more about what James Fetzer said concerning the accuracy of the claims in his book ...
dgh01: Ah, it's called the moon Mr. Peter's, been going on for a few years or so, nothing odd about the TIDE! No secret, no conspiracy... Sure would be nice if you could shed some light regarding your film/photo expertise, No? Or are you stating opinion? You obviously know what we, on this side of the Atlantic think about opinions. WHY, should I or anyone of the lurkers hereabouts care one whit about your opinion of what Jack Whites opinion is regarding JFK Assassination related photography? Unless of course your attempting to protect HISTORY, a history custom designed for the masses? Why care?
I'm on the record, Mr. Peter's - are YOU?
[snip the rest of the nonsense]
Your loyalty to Mr. White is admirable. Your desire for putting the truth ahead of loyalty is questionable. We all might be best served if you have any specific observations about the images being discussed in this thread that you stay focused on that aspect of things. Testing the evidence is the best way to make progress here.
dgh01: My loyalty is to myself Mr. Peter's -- I suspect ALL that intone "the truth" is paramount in dealing with the JFK Assassination evidence. Your going to get real dirty dealing with the issues in this case. Murder is a nasty business... Why question me about motives regarding truth? They're in book form, buy HOAX!
I suspect you lurkers out there will be besieged with a plethora of JWhite images and criticism - stand by, it's the normal routine for anti-alteration detractors, they can't do their own photo work.. Too bad they can't create their own marked up photos and show us the error of OUR ways! However, they've plenty of time and criticism for those that DO the work! Chalk it up to good ole Yankee capitalism, greed and of course EGO -- not to mention: a liberal sprinkling of self-serving propoganda. :-)
I'll be watching Mr. Peter's.... best wishes to all for wonderful
-
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
-
I noticed he does not have a PhD. Not that means he is right or wrong, but it does mean his training is recognized by others.
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
-
I have completely disclosed my identity. Can -I- ask for the names of these alleged photographic experts without being personally attacked?
Clint Bradford
Shall we assume you'll disclose your expertise as a photographic *expert*?
David Healy
-
There was absolutely no time in the chain of possession for this incredible amount of sinsister alterations to occur.
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.
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
-
[...]
After graduating from high school in 1967, I joined the U.S. Marine Corps. Finished boot camp in March of 1968, had specialized training as a radioman, and was then sent to Vietnam. Spent 13 months (normal Marine Corps tour) there with the 3rd battalion, 1st marine regiment, 1st marine division.
[...]
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.
-
[...]
"McGoo" is correct in noting that the Zapruder film is consistent with the other films of the assassination. Jack White has responded to this by claiming that ALL of the films were altered, which only adds to the absurdities.
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
-
Frankly, I cannot see for the life of me what the big problem is with why a select handful of researchers have a question as to where Mary Moorman stood? I believe this all started with the "film alteration" crowd. Let me explain ...
<snip to preserve bandwidth>
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]
Jack White: Questions
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted