David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Von Pein opines:
[...]
Richard W. Burgess of the Department of Classical Studies at the University of Ottawa...in addition to noting that “I have personal knowledge of the sorts of processes and effects that were available to film-makers in 1963 and I can state categorically that the Zapruder film has not had anything added to it or removed from it apart from the splices that everyone knows about,” he finds the hypothesis set forth by [Harrison] Livingstone and [David] Lifton ludicrous on its face. He writes that such an alteration “would result in a ridiculously amateurish mess that would not fool a four-year-old, even in the hands of a skilled miniature painter under a microscope.”
[...]
LMAO, "amateurish mess"? Therein lies the problem with YOU amateurs, you're simply amateurs! If there is anything "ludicrious" about your post DVP its the fact you use amateurs to opine re professional post-production film craft. C'mon dude, you might have newbies impressed, however, those that have been around for the last 15+ years or so know better... sheeeesssssh!
-
4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
David J.,
Try doing the same zooming-in on Clint Hill's head at approx. frame 340 of the Z-Film and see if you think Hill's pitch-black head also resembles a "black sharpie patch".
From a 2015 discussion.....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What's causing the same kind of "blackness" to appear on the back of Clint Hill's head in the very same Z-Film frame? Was Hill's head "blacked out" by the conspirators too?....
ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:
Hill's head is turned far more to the north, and is in shadow. Look at Altgens' shadow.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In this comparison I made below of the head positions of Secret Service agent Clint Hill and JFK, it doesn't look to me as if Hill's head is in a position (relative to the sun) that is all that much different than JFK's head position. Does it? And yet I see the same blackness appearing at the back of both of their heads. And with respect to the Z317 frame shown here of President Kennedy's head, I've heard many conspiracy theorists say that they think JFK's head has most certainly been artificially "blacked out" here (click to enlarge)....
Looks like one more conspiracy myth debunked by merely examining other parts of the same allegedly "altered" Zapruder home movie.[...]
And...since no plotter or conspirator bent on altering or faking the Zapruder Film would possibly have had any need or desire to alter any part of Clint Hill's image in the film, then I think even most conspiracy believers would agree with me that the "blackness" that we see at the back of Clint Hill's head in frame 340 is legitimate, unaltered blackness being seen on his head.
Therefore, since Hill's "blackness" is real and legit in Z340, then why would anybody think that the similar "blackness" at the back of President Kennedy's head in Z317 (which is just 1.25 seconds earlier than Z340 in the very same home movie) is blackness that must have been added to the film by some unknown film-fakers?
It's time to stamp the "blacked out head" theory with this label --- DEBUNKED!More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html
LMAO! debunked? debunked? Don't give up that fry cooking day job of yours Von Pein. You haven't a clue, nor the sources to make statements like "debunked." Son, I doubt you know the difference between 16mm film and digital videotape. Give it a rest.
-
excellent discussion... thanks one and all!
-
1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:
If others at the State Dept had private email servers, did they have them installed in their homes?
Clinton violated the law if it was grossly negligent to have classified material on such a server. Comey decided, of course, that she was only "extremely careless." He didn't explain the difference.
She was the Sect'y of State, I'd be surprised if she DIDN'T have multiple "classified" servers.
-
3 hours ago, Chris Scally said:
I totally disagree that Alexandra Zapruder's book is "deplorable" - it is a fascinating insight into the impact of the film on her family, and gives us a never-before seen or understood look behind much of the film's history.
What I do find sadly "deplorable" is that you cite Doug Horne, Homer McMahon and Dino Brugioni as "proof" - or even "evidence" - that the film has been altered.
Chris
I'll take Doug Horne (AARB investigator) anyday over a Zapruder family member (evidently now author) trying to make 'another' buck on the Z-film. Hell, the family was paid $16+million US taxpayer dollars for the *alleged* in-camera original Zapruder film. And they're STILL at the JFK assassination trough! <sigh>. I find that odd.
-
On 11/13/2016 at 1:40 PM, Glenn Nall said:
Cliff.
The country's democracy operates on the Electoral College. Not the Popular Vote. Always has.
For a reason.
You knew that, right?
there's a few schools of thought on that. The primary reason, in my humble opinion, the electoral college gave the southern states (after the civil war) equal footing in presidential elections.
-
My time with Harry is to say the least, memorable. Harry's interviews with Roland Zavada, classic. And, Roland knew, Harry was sure Roland was not delivering the entire story regarding the Zapruder film and told him so.
And congrat's Jim, I'll pick up the PB edition.
-
What about a 23rd-century opinion, Paul?
-
Dave - Thanks, Pat. I'm glad I didn't waste my time watching it.You know, Dave, I'm going to say this nicely because I do admire all of your efforts to put together the many great videos and radio broadcasts that you've posted. You've made a great historical record for current and future generations. But I've never gone to your website before until I read your comments on the other thread that mentioned the money order.And, boy - and really I'm not trying to be nasty here - but I was shocked at what you've done over there. I thought it was going to be a lot of copy and pasting from McAdams's site but instead there's a lot of "coulda woulda and shouldas" over there. For example, on the mailing of the MO, you have nothing more than "he coulda done it in the morning." I was so shocked because - is that all you can offer?As for the video that Chuck made, I was also very impressed with it. The only thing I don't agree with are the painting in of the Z film and the altering of it. But I really think he did a great job.
I concur Mr. Walton... a marvelous effort by Chuck. I'm sure DVP is all bent out of shape cause Chuck is racking up the hits of late. All DVP can do is issue (and reissue) that same old 1964 WCR sick, media nonsense.
Anyone associated with, published by and or for Jim Fetzer always gets a grating response from Pat Speer, not to mention DVP -- lmao!
-
Boy, fear is really in vogue this season.....neither Churchill nor JFK would be much impressed. And interestingly enough JFK assessed and laid out a whole series of very calculated "pay the price" escalations in regard to the Berlin Crisis the year after he was elected, including the nuclear option. Amazingly enough it worked out quite well, the Russians were very clear about what the price was and made none of their anticipated moves. The key is doing that before they move and letting them know the cost and consequences....as we failed to do a number of times throughout the Cold War and more recently....
If that little teaser about JFK and contingency plans got your interest, check out this link:
Thank you, Larry! Indeed FEAR does seems to be not only in vogue today, but a requirement for wannabe pundits, second-rate pundits and real pundits. Whatever the hell they are!
-
Ernie--excellent work, and thanks for the links....
-
great job, guy!
-
It's been some months since I started this thread showing the weakness of PROBE magazine (1993-1999) articles on Ruth Paine, so it's time for a review.
PROBE magazine, former publication of the influential CTKA, has accused Ruth of participating in a material way in a CIA plot to kill JFK. The CIA plot itself is merely presumed -- and PROBE writers further presumed that Ruth Paine was part of that murder plot.
More recently, the second edition of James DiEugenio's book, Destiny Betrayed (2012), in the section, The Baron, the Paines, and Dulles, pages 193-208, repeats all these silly accusations in a sort of summary.
I posted several criticisms (assorted posts from #292 to #322) of DiEugenio's weak arguments many months ago on this thread, but for the sake of brevity, I'll summarize the eighteen criticisms here:
1. James DiEugenio says that George DeMohrenschildt was a CIA Agent who “handed over” the Oswalds to the CIA Agent couple, the Paines, during a February 22nd 1963 party at Everett Glover’s apartment. DiEugenio is certain that the Paines had known the DeMohrenschildt’s for a long time, despite Ruth’s 1964 claim that she met them for the first and last time in her life, at that party. (James incompetently accused Ruth's 1964 testimony of perjury, based on the fact that Ruth met George again in 1966.)
2. James DiEugenio insists that Michael Paine had “hidden associations” in the CIA, namely, the elder members of his own family – a grand uncle and a cousin involved in United Fruit, and another cousin who leased land to David Atlee Phillips for Radio Swan. So, these "hidden associations" just turn out to be wealthy relatives. James then adds a special dig -- that Michael’s mother had a childhood friend (Anne Bancroft) who later became a mistress of Allen Dulles. James presents this as *proof* of CIA connections.
3. James DiEugenio insists that Ruth Paine had “hidden associations” in the CIA, namely, her father, an insurance actuary, also led an organization called AID (Agency for International Development) to stimulate business in Latin America. As the CIA would often hitch a ride with USA international corporations to seek out international crime, James simply concludes that AID was CIA. Ruth’s brother in law also worked there. Ruth denied knowing they were in the CIA. Ruth’s elder sister was a psychologist – who never spoke about her work with the CIA, and Ruth denied knowing about her work. James just accuses Ruth of lying.
4. Dallas Sheriff’s Deputy Buddy Walthers claimed that he saw in Ruth Paine’s garage “six or seven metal filing cabinets with names of Castro sympathizers.” The fact that no other witnesses ever saw these, and they were never documented, never catalogued and never photographed, doesn’t phase James DiEugenio. He’s certain they exist and that they prove Ruth Paine was a CIA Agent.
5. James DiEugenio accuses Ruth Paine of CIA murder in Nicaragua, because she was part of an Interfaith movement of Catholics, Quakers, Methodists and other churches in 1991 to provide Relief to women and children in the Civil War torn region. (James even started a Forum thread on this topic.) When further deaths of Relief Workers became a great strain, the leaders of the movement asked Ruth Paine to please return to the USA because her history with Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination made too many people suspicious and afraid. Ruth understood and complied as soon as she was requested. But James callously accuses Ruth Paine of CIA murder in Nicaragua, which he also presumes is evidence that Ruth Paine helped the CIA murder JFK.
6. A personal friend of Ruth Paine confided to journalist Steven Jones elements of her conversations with Ruth Paine about Ruth's strained relationship with her daughter, who was into Wicca at that time. One of the statements Ruth’s daughter said was that her mother could never be free until she confronted the “evil” within her. No more detail was given, but James DiEugenio presumes that this referred to Ruth’s role in the CIA conspiracy to murder JFK -- and nothing to do with Wicca.
7. Marina Oswald told the FBI in early December 1963 that LHO confessed to her on the night of 10 April 1963 that he had tried to kill General Walker at his Dallas home. According to James DiEugenio, LHO never shot at Walker, but Ruth Paine and the CIA forged evidence to make it appear so, and somehow made Marina Oswald perjure herself, and also made George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt perjure themselves on this topic. Yet Marina and the De Mohrenschildt's all expressed their disgust at General Walker and his racist politics. They had no reason to perjure themselves on Walker's behalf.
8. The “Walker Note,” which was verified by handwriting experts to be written by LHO, and sworn by Marina Oswald to have been left in her possession by LHO on 10 April 1963, is a set of instructions, in Russian language, telling Marina what to do in case he got arrested on that night. According to James DiEugenio, Ruth Paine forged the "Walker Note" in order to frame LHO for the Walker shooting. James simply ignores the Secret Service handwriting experts.
9. James DiEugenio recognizes the mismatch between the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting – Walker was missed; JFK was hit – Walker was a fascist, JFK was a liberal, and so on. Despite the lost connection, James insists on blaming Ruth Paine for framing LHO for the Walker shooting so that she could also frame LHO for the JFK assassination.
10. James DiEugenio also insinuates that of the four cameras the DPD found in Ruth Paine’s house: the Cuera, the Stereo Realist, the Imperial Reflex and the miniature Minox spy camera, that the latter two really belonged to Ruth Paine. James' logic is hat Ruth was a CIA spy and the Walker photos were taken with the Imperial Reflex, so she "must" have owned those cameras.
11. James DiEugenio denies that LHO went to Mexico City, but he insists that Ruth Paine framed LHO as having been there by using Mexican souvenirs which were all CIA props. James’ only evidence is that LHO denied it, and at first Marina just denied everything to the FBI (as most people would deny everything). James also ignores the Lopez Report (a formerly classified CIA report that became a FOIA release in 2003) which confirms that LHO was indeed in Mexico City.
12. James DiEugenio accuses Ruth Paine and the CIA of inventing the Undelivered, Undeliverable package that was officially reported in the Irving Post Office nine days after the JFK assassination, addressed to Lee Oswald at a bogus address, which contained nothing but a paper bag. In James’ imagination, the CIA hoped that LHO would put his fingerprints on the paper bag, so they could link this paper bag with the one later found at the TSBD 6th floor. James has no explanation for the fact that the package was Undeliverable.
13. James DiEugenio strains to link the Undelivered, Undeliverable package (which has no date or postage on it) onto an unrelated Postage Due notice of November 20th 1963 found at Ruth Paine's house. Although the Post Office says the Postage Due notice was fulfilled by a ‘magazine delivery,’ James insists it couldn’t have been fulfilled, because it *must have been* for the Undelivered, Undeliverable package. After the JFK assassination, claims James, the CIA or FBI put a bogus address sticker over Ruth Paine’s address to conceal their plot; claims James.
14. James DiEugenio seizes upon a double “Postal Form” found in Ruth Paine's house, with the name and address of both George Bouhe, leader of the White Russian Community, and Lee Harvey Oswald. That *must have been* a CIA plot – somehow, claims James. Actually, since LHO was also receiving mail at Ruth Paine's house, and George Bouhe was well-known to both Marina and Lee Oswald, there is no real mystery. Yet James believes the everybody in the Dallas Russian expatriate community and in their Russian Orthodox Church were CIA Agents.
15. James DiEugenio harps on Ruth’s marking in her calendar on the day after the JFK assassination that LHO bought a rifle back in March, as she had heard on TV that day. Ruth explained her act as a result of the high pressure of the JFK news hitting everybody from all sides on 11/23/1963, when she made her note. James finds her explanation, “bewildering.”
16. James DiEugenio then claims that Ruth Paine couldn’t have wanted to improve her Russian conversational skills by having Marina Oswald live with her, because Ruth was already fluent enough, in James DiEugenio’s non-expert opinion. Ruth could teach small boys from a Russian grammar textbook – so what more could she possibly want?
17. James DiEugenio is "surprised" that Ruth Paine could be offended by the way that LHO treated her from jail –- phoning her, cool and calm, and bossing her like his personal secretary, to contact attorney John Abt for him – and to keep calling until she got him. I think most people would be offended. I know I would have.
18. James DiEugenio expresses outrage at an allegation that Michael Paine told the Houston Post on November 23 that Oswald may have been involved in the Walker shooting. But the only source James cites for this is a PROBE magazine rumor. (Somebody told the Houston Post, but nobody knows who. Robert Allen Surrey is a better guess, IMHO; or Walker himself as he had told the Deutsche Nationalzeitung less than 18 hours after JFK was killed.) James is simply reaching -- again.
Anyway, there it is. Based on these arguments over the past two decades, James DiEugenio has claimed that “the Paines should be on the short list to be sworn before a grand jury.” (DB2, p. 208) It’s “open season” on the Paines, announced James DiEugenio. The 18 points above are examples of his marksmanship.
Regards,
Paul Trejo
no traction, give it a rest will ya?
-
There was a suggestion that the SS recreation video was shot at approx 18/18.3fps.
If that was indeed true, the pulldown conversion ratio would have been different.
29.97/18 = 1.665/1 ratio = 5/3 pulldown ratio.
for those uninitiated, the why's of 29.97fps is explained here... https://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/usermanual/index.html#chapter=D%26section=6%26tasks=true
There was a suggestion that the SS recreation video was shot at approx 18/18.3fps.
If that was indeed true, the pulldown conversion ratio would have been different.
29.97/18 = 1.665/1 ratio = 5/3 pulldown ratio.
for those uninitiated, the why's of 29.97fps is explained here... https://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/usermanual/index.html#chapter=D%26section=6%26tasks=true
David,
More math, you know how much I hate that subject.
lol.... simply b&w to color concerns, Chris.
-
There was a suggestion that the SS recreation video was shot at approx 18/18.3fps.
If that was indeed true, the pulldown conversion ratio would have been different.
29.97/18 = 1.665/1 ratio = 5/3 pulldown ratio.
for those uninitiated, the why's of 29.97fps is explained here... https://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/usermanual/index.html#chapter=D%26section=6%26tasks=true
-
[...]
....(to be continued).....
Brad Milch
well, I'm interested...
-
[...]
There may well be experts who contradict the opinions of Zavada and Fielding.
[...]
Does anyone know of any experts who have examined the Zapruder film in the National Archives and whose opinions contradict those of Zavada and Fielding?
re your above:
first: when did he make them and where are Fielding's comments and opinion to which you refer?
second: no experts have examined the Zapruder film for possible alteration and that includes Fielding. In fact, Raymond told me he wanted nothing to do with this controversy, at all. You do understand the relationship between KODAK and university film schools, correct?
Thank you
-
[...]
There's that standard DEMAND again. You have to PROVE nothing, just make a lame remark, and we're all supposed to bow to you. But we have to prove to you, someone who's mind is already made up and doesn't listen. There is nothing that will satisfy you on this subject, because you reject ALL evidence as inadequate that contradicts your belief. Period.If that's what you'll then say, then YOU - not me - have to then prove three things:
1. What was so terrible in this "other" film that the Bad Guys went through all of the trouble of altering it?
2. Where is this other film?
3. How do YOU (and Chris, Dave, Dave, Jim Fetzer and others) know what was in it if the film has NEVER been seen before?
If you can't answer these three questions conclusively, then I'm sorry to say but the whole Z film alteration theory collapses like a deck of cards. Then if you can't answer them but want to keep playing Whack A Mole here, jumping around from topic to topic, then it'd probably be a good idea to just wrap this up.
[...]
Typical lone nut-disinfo dance, Tom. We've been calling them on their BS everywhere else except here, for some unfathomable reason... They simply can not defend the 1964 WCR conclusions, so the trolls dance. And not very well at that.
-
Michael Walton said:
"So now the Bad Guys brought in Hanna Barbera to paint in the blob, Tom?! I thought it was Ub Iwerks they brought in. Holy ####!"
********
now we know you're panicking... <boring>
-
...
Sigh...Sandy, please go and read what Jeremy wrote about you CAN'T bump up Kodachrome film without causing a lot of aritifacts. So think of this timeline: Take the 8mm film, bump it up to 16mm? 35mm? [artifacts]; paint in the blob; bump it back down to 8mm; send this version to NARA where it's currently stored. Really, Sandy? Really? OMG....bull pookie son... you can bump anything to anything. Tell us what kind of artifacts, why they are there. And seeing you're not EVER going to make a comparison with the alleged in-camera original, you're simply passing on nonsense or disinfo. Which most of us have come to accept that of you...
-
Perhaps Evan you've been at this too long. Time for a change? LMAO!
-
[...]
I don't want to get too personal here, but you're the guy who thinks that alterations would have been made directly on the 8 mm film. (And therefore could not have been done.) Common sense tells me that if alterations were made, they would have been done on large prints. Which later would be photographed back onto 8 mm film. Or something along those lines.[...]Roland Zavada told me the same thing too. Direct alteration 8mm to 8mm.... Had to school him on reality too!
So, exactly, an 8mm film bump direct to 35mm (one pass) as was done in NYC, for LIFE magazine with the alleged Z-film currently held at NARA.
Think that's a crock? Simply ask Groden where he got his 35mm copy of the Zapruder film...
This is what happens Sandy when rank amateurs jump into the middle of something they know nothing about... or, they DO know something that they want to hide by misdirection...
It's been going on with the Zapruder film commentary for 16 years now, nothing new, just new amateurs.
-
[...]
DAVID HEALEY - perhaps the good folks here will read the complete Roland 'Zavada Report' (KODAK'S 8mm film guru) re the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film. The Dallas film house owner (film processing lab) that ran off the 3 Zapruder film dupes went into some detail regarding the inter-sprocket imagery.Wow, David. Un-freaking-believable. On another EF post on the Z film that I've been posting on, when further evidence that no alterations of the film took place, instead of showing the common sense you're now showing here, you swept in and just bashed what I was saying with absolutely nothing to back it up. And now here, when my first post here mentions the Zavada Report and the ghost images explains WHY those images are there, you concur? Jeez.***[...]concur to what, son? Roland Zavada wrote a report? Roland jumping on a plane after I spoke with him about special effects cinematography, SMPE specifics the author of same whom lives in Florida, concur with that?
Listen Bud, if you can't spell my name right, you and I have nada, ziltch to talk about. Take you whine someplace else, son! You're dismissed.
-
[...]And yet on this forum and elsewhere, all pretense of reason is thrown out with the bath water. For example, a group of researchers have done a really good job of not only showing the possibility of Oswald standing in the doorway during and after the shooting (Prayer Man) and they even back it up by meticulously researching and making a chart showing the whereabouts of everyone in the TSBD that day. But as soon as it's posted, the same people who think of the crazy beliefs that the Z film was altered tear into this well-researched PM post, saying "It's not LHO, it's a woman, wearing a dress, taking a photo, holding a bottle, wearing a shiny bracelet, she's 4 foot 11, or 6 foot 5..." and on and on and on. It's ridiculous. Then, this other guy, who actually recreated the scene in 3D animation software - and which I applaud for his efforts - and can pretty much prove that the size and character of the person there could be Oswald - is completely ignored.I honestly believe it's because the people who made PM are not from the U.S. and, therefore, the U.S. members are ###### off because THEY didn't think of it and start bashing it. But how does that serve the research community as a whole? It doesn't and makes us all look like a bunch of baying loons and crackpots. It's really sad if you ask me.
Reason, out the window? Methinketh you're whining too much!
I think, if you "honestly" believed the research regarding Z-film alteration was faulty, you'd do your best insisting that the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film be authenticated. Simple as that, that would end all the quibbling, whining and moaning... Pontificating gets you NO WHERE! What seems foolish to you, not so with others. If you want to preserve the findings of the 1964 WCR report, terrific, carry on.
BTW, pontificating is NOT research!
Is that ... (Gasp) ... Billy Lovelady Talking With Gloria Calvery on the Steps?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
old Wild Bill has been this way for 15 years now, its what got him thrown of Rich DellaRosa's JFK Assassination Research site years ago.... "photo-expert" is indeed a stretch.