David G. Healy

thanks Chris....

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.

Geez Dude, the least you could do to even make a joke with bite is use 16mm or 8mm film viewers. But 35mm? That's downright amateurish on your part. But, don't let us stop you having your day in the sun...

Jeremy that's where you are wrong. Nobody has to sit down with anyone and argue about anything. If the DP film(s) are all fine in your estimation, terrific. Just simply tell us why, then move on. Others will make their determination as they see fit. If film alteration is not in your book, terrific. Without verification and authentication of the alleged Zapruder film (the most important piece of case evidence used to implicate LHO as the **sole** assassin of JFK and the SBT) the film alteration controversy continues. For the record, the alleged Z-film is altered, frames were removed (film break LIFE, Chicago) and Z-frames were transposed (per JEH-FBI). And the proverbial first frame flash continues to haunt the Z-film purists. What you seem to not understand is by doing the "math" what emerges is simple (to me), there had to be a second shooter in the plaza that day and possibly a third -- which proves not only a conspiracy but points to coups d'état. You'll also be somewhat surprised that most 1964 WCR critics here have NOT eliminated the idea that LHO was involved.

Jim, Ya might want to take a quick peek at the following links. William Redmond was my first brush with this topic, then of course Rich DellaRosa, concluding with Greg Burnham : (William Redmond)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRhcQI4tFTI (Rich DellaRosa - Black Op Radio interview) http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/ (Greg Burnham owner of assassinationofjfk.net) ... all three have told me they have seen the **other** film. I have no reason to doubt them.

thanks Robin -- and for the uninitiated, in video 2 fields = 1 frame, ie., 1 second of video = 30frames of video made up of 64 fields... ya wanna tell a few of these newbies what DF/NDF (drop frame/non drop frame) video is, Robin? Good luck!

Hello Anonymous User! LMAO!

I really wish when the Craigster Lampoon Lamson sends lone nuts to do his bidding, he surely should give them some sort of education regarding the topic.... and it's HEALY not HEALEY, ya blind son? start your education by acquiring and reading this: The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography -- Raymond Fielding and, if you can find the 1965 first edition there's enough to keep you busy in the glossary alone citing and quoting SMPE (Society of Motion Picture Engineers - those that set film standards worldwide) you really need to get up to speed if you want any credibility around here regarding this issue. And you'll be happy to know Rollie Zavada made a special trip to interview Ray Fielding after the 2003 Univ. of Minn. symposium regarding the Zapruder Film. Now, as to *thee* Bob Fosse, I suspect there was a whole lot of choreography done when it comes to the Zapruder film and alteration of same. I'll take the Hollywood practitioners of special effects cinematography over Fosse 's drivel any day. Have a nice day!

deleted duplicate....

Fosse? As in Bob Fosse? Now that's utter ridiculousness! LMAO! Actually, it could have been done utilizing 1940's film technology. Which was at least 13 years BEFORE the Z-film was shot! Take it to the bank! Ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.... Thanks DH - and now with Chris' math we prove the 48fps and the bogus claim that 19 feet was "run off" before emptying the camera of film at Kodak... "0184" - this simple number explains a lot more than was originally offered IMHO. "...Third print forwarded" - Max Philips to Chief Rowley... Anyone ever trace what happens to the Rowley copy - 0184? DJ #0184 to Hawkeye Works? When working with a master (film-video-print) the FIRST, the VERY FIRST thing you do in post-production, is make sure the original in-camera film is duplicated at the highest quality possible. Hence, a backup master, which I believe was assigned #0184. Letting Zapruder out of a film lab walking around Dallas with the "film of the century" and NO backup is *utter ridiculousness,* fools folly!

Fosse? As in Bob Fosse? Now that's utter ridiculousness! LMAO! Actually, it could have been done utilizing 1940's film technology. Which was at least 13 years BEFORE the Z-film was shot! Take it to the bank!

(Removed link-Admin) That's a nice tacky and disgusting comment there. So was Steven Skeen's. The moderators should delete both of them. Totally tactless. we agree for once...

I hate to ask this but, has anyone ever asked Marina if in fact Judyth or any other women was on LHO radar screen 2 years before his murder, or, even suspected there was another woman?

excellent... for the naysayers out there Z-film alteration is slowly becoming fact. Quite possibly as extensive as Dr. John Costella put forth 13 years ago.

Duncan Ever get the feeling that what you are doing has become so ridiculous, no one even takes the time to criticize it anymore? was thinking the same thing... reeks like a Craig Lampoon, er, Lamson project!

re the .gif above: quickly, is this camera on a tripod mount? If not, it appears the camera is rotating a bit around the z^. Meaning the cameraman if facing towards the intersection, camera on right shoulder. As he pans left to right he's not twisting his body towards the right. The tendency for the cameraperson leaning a bit to the left to maintain balance as you pan right to left, while raising the right shoulder a bit thus starting a lens rotation around the z^ axis. (make a downhill shot look like its going uphill). If its tripod based footage, then find out who the adobe after effects compositing software tech is who is associated with same footage. The effect would be much greater the further down Elm street the camera pan continued. Ahhhh, Lapoon Lamie.

not a bad idea, Brad. Not a bad idea at all!!!!

Is it any wonder why lone nuts have apoplexy when Mark Lane's name is brought up? Especially when it has to do with Rush to Judgement ...

Well, that's nice, Jim, but I am talking about guilt or innocence. You don't want to talk about that. Understandable (of course). But the "guilt or innocence" question is (naturally) the most important thing that needs to be decided when talking about Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President Kennedy. Or do you think the most important thing is to keep repeating the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra simply because Oswald's case never went to trial in an American courtroom? In other words, many conspiracy theorists seem to think that the "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" crutch supersedes the massive amount of evidence that proves Lee Oswald's (double) guilt. If you want to keep on using that crutch, Jim, that's your choice. But I think it's just a convenient and handy excuse that conspiracists use in order to avoid having to face the obvious truth --- which is: the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases proves that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double murderer. I think your response here DVP is typical loon nut fashion. Most serious 1964 WCR conclusion critics are well aware that LHO may have been involved somehow in the events of 11/22/63. Either willingly or unwillingly. What most 1964 WCR critics would like to know is the why of the presidential murder. The very thing you flee from every time you're confronted with same. And here's YOUR crutch, "let's keep it at LHO did it all by his lonesome," right? Anything to avoid the obvious truth, eh? 53 years of disembelling the WC conclusions and your still stuck in the 1964 press conference LBJ gave when the report was released.... LMAO! It's no wonder only a few are taking you seriously these days.

But what's even more shameful is the way Mark Lane tried to cast doubt on certain undeniable facts surrounding JFK's assassination, such as his ludicrous speculation in his 1967 film "Rush To Judgment" about Oswald possibly not being on Cecil McWatters' bus at all on 11/22/63, and the portion of the film where Lane seems to give some credence to the "Oswald In The Doorway" theory. Neither of those facts was in doubt in the slightest way by the time his film hit the theater screens in 1967, but to hear Lane tell it, maybe Oswald WAS in the doorway, and maybe Oswald never was on that bus. Shameful behavior from Lane. But those types of blatant distortions, coming as they did from an iconic conspiracy theorist and Warren Commission critic like Mr. Lane, just roll off the back of James DiEugenio, don't they Jim? [...] Man, are YOU dancing now! Party line, eh David? Like you stuck in 1964! Carry on.

excellent review, Jim. Also, looking forward to Vasilos Vasakas: Who Really created the Oswald Legend.

thanks for all your efforts regarding this case too, Jim. And in all candidness, your star is also rising....

frankly Glen, I think he always knew!

thank you for sharing the photos, Bart. Was that by-the-way Ian Griggs in the audience?

knowing you as someone who has failed miserably with internet book publishing PR (Reclaiming History by Vin da-Bugliosi), why do you insist you're correct here regarding Oswald's guilt? What are your cred's? Perhaps a little birdie told you so? My gosh guy, you sell fried chicken and day dream about playing American Legion baseball... coauthor 1 book, 11 websites, 6 blogs, 7 YouTube channels, 467,533 USENET/Internet forums-board postings. Yet never a public appearance. Anywhere! I mean, what's wrong with this picture, Dave-the-nowhere-man?