David G. Healy

I wasn't sure if posting more instalments on this thread would be acceptable, so Part II of this is on another thread.

very nice overview of the MC....

run and hide, hon.... run & hide!

Anyone that bases his research on YouTube videos is a definite believer in junk science.

Poor bobby.

I exercise my second amendment rights to the fullest, and in addition one of my good friend, is ex special forces and is a world class armorer. We have spent quality time at the range shooting all manner of conventional and modified projectiles into ballistic gel and other ballistic backstops.

The YouTube videos are just a bonus and offer some nice visual proof to refute your nonsense.

with so few lone nuts today and considering those left AND their ongoing credibility issues, its no wonder your flitting all over the place... wearing your lone nut rearend out, eh hon? lmao!

sitdown, you're a waste of time... bring what on? I'm waiting for YOUR proof your correspondence with Moe, Rollie Zavada and any other you deem necessary, with headers. Now if they request you not post proof of their correspondence here, simply say so. Then we can keep you in that good old tard-pit reserved for noise makers, of which there are many here these days....

The closer to Nov 2013 the more your compatriots seem overwrought and full of ill feelings. For something that happened 50 years ago, amazing... <sigh> Carry on Sluggo!

Uh Davie you were CC;ed most of my correspondence with Zavada. If you think I made up any of the rest you can ask him if he really said what I quoted him as saying. Ditto my exchanges with Ray Fielding, you know the expert YOU kept citing who ended up saying what you and your buddies proposed was impossible at the time. I have no idea who "Moe" is, are your years catching up with you?

Len (compatriot of Craigster), you'll notice my above comment was toward Lampoon Lamson, not you. Having said that, I do recall you nominating yourself spokesperson for Rollie Zavada and his new and improved, rewritten Zavada Report. Which was to shortly appear right here on the Education Forum. Of course we know what happened. It should be noted that the Gang of 8, of which you were sniffing around its edges at the time, did not heartedly endorse Rollies new venture, in fact, they tried to dissuade him with much vigor. Which the gang of 8 finally succeeded. The was no reissue of the Zavada report, which is a damn shame.

For the record your "exchanges with Ray Fielding and Rollie Zavada are irrelevant, especially after your admission you knew nothing about optical film printing. It was then you attained the rank of Tink's cheerleader in my eye. Nice enough guy, aren't all Redd Foxx fans nice guys?

My, we have a crowd gathering Len...

Moe? My-oh-my. Ask Groden, Len. Without Moe and his goodies they'd probably be no Z-film controversy.

Hi Bob, Feeling fine. Good to hear from you again. Herb Blenner has posted an interesting comment on Duncan's site.

"Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?

Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.

Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?

Governor CONNALLY. We took - you are talking about the number of the slides?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.

Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.

Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was -

Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.

Governor Connally set a clever trap when he identified frames of the 130's as showing when he was shot. Specter took the bait and suggested 231 as showing the shot. Apparently shaken by his mistake, Specter mindlessly acknowledged that the numbering system starts when the car comes around the turn before leading Connally to relate the time of his wounding to emergence from behind the sign. This turn of the car is not seen in our copy of the Zapruder film. "

What happened to the hundred frames?

Worth keeping handy:

Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? (# 230)

Paul,

Yes, it's worth keeping handy alright. And interesting to see how quickly that 17-page Muchmore thread of yours died so soon after the subject of Dan Rather's viewing of the Zapruder film was posted.

Rather viewed the film on Monday November 25 at KRLD for nearly an hour. From his notes, he reported on it four times that day. Once on radio. Three times on TV: 4:18 pm, 4:30 pm, and 8:26 pm EST. All TV reports were completely different video presentations. No replays of previous broadcasts. So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this.

One more thing for now. Considering the above, Rather was clearly not the first person to see the Zapruder film, having viewed it on Monday. Hard to understand, then, why Dan Rather critic Jim DiEugenio would pass on Rather's version of this event to us, i.e. that Rather was the first person to see the film (p. 304 of DiEugenio's "The Assassinations"). Maybe there's a retraction out there somewhere from DiEugenio since that book of his was published, and I've just missed it.

Ken

Mr. Rheberg

To quote from the "Lone Nut Quick Response Handbook", Dan Rather was:

a) Confused

Mistaken

c) Lying

d) Mis-remembering (my personal favorite)

e) Seeking fifteen minutes of fame

f) All of the above

you're going to do just fine around here, Robert.

It would also be nice if nutters could or would find experts other than over the hill, beholden, retired KODAK film employees for commentary... I mean 39 years with KODAK, did he share a desk with Rollie?

from Noel Tyman's Bloody Treason page 55.

quote on

(Roderick)He was with Eastman Kodak.

Company in Hollywood, California, from 1947 to 1986 where he

held various engineering and executive positions, including

regional director of engineering services-motion picture

division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture

film technology.

quote off

KODAK Engineering services? Now what the hell does that have to do with optical film composing. I could just see this dude telling Director-Actor Orson Wells he can't do this effect cause his executive position at Kodak and his film technology inclinations tells him so.... you're a joke, dude. But please carry on!

That the best you can do davie? He was GREAT until he was not... Fetzer: "Roderick Ryan, a Hollywood expert on special effects "

You simply can't win can you daive? LMAO!

More than enough, Dude, MORE than ENOUGH! ! ! !

So good night Craig, btw, you're useless. And, I could care less who called whom what-- he meaning Dr. Jim Fetzer, who also called me an expert on the Zapruder film and you know where that led, all the way to Duluth with those you only wish you could rub shoulders with... tsk-tsk. So, are you going to Dallas and see Dr. John Costella, discuss a few items, or will you be staying in DVP's closet for the duration of the 50th's festivities, as Dave will be?

You run so fast from Zapruder alteration scenarios hon, all we can see is your backside, but that's okay, we need a closet nutter to kick around, especially seeing that Gary's ghost no longer haunts here...

Ya know the last time I spoke to Ray Fielding he said: I want no part, NO PART of a Zapruder film debate,end of discussion. Then Rollie calls me he going to Florida and talk with Fielding...perhaps old Rollie isn't so sure... What's always amazed me about the Gang of Eight is they never, ever, found a optical film lab technician or optical film lab post production director to comment on what can and can't be done, provide a few compositing scenarios concerning the Zapruder film. 10 years and counting... NOTHING!

Except for Ray Fielding who called you and your work technically naive, and oh yea how about Rod Roderick, who said after viewing the film UNDER A MICROSCOPE, it was not altered.

You don't have clue, say-nothing

It would also be nice if nutters could or would find experts other than over the hill, beholden, retired KODAK film employees for commentary... I mean 39 years with KODAK, did he share a desk with Rollie?

from Noel Tyman's Bloody Treason page 55.

quote on

(Roderick)He was with Eastman Kodak.

Company in Hollywood, California, from 1947 to 1986 where he

held various engineering and executive positions, including

regional director of engineering services-motion picture

division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture

film technology.

quote off

KODAK Engineering services? Now what the hell does that have to do with optical film composing. I could just see this dude telling Director-Actor Orson Wells he can't do this effect cause his executive position at Kodak and his film technology inclinations tells him so.... you're a joke, dude. But please carry on!

Ya know the last time I spoke to Ray Fielding he said: I want no part, NO PART of a Zapruder film debate,end of discussion. Then Rollie calls me he going to Florida and talk with Fielding...perhaps old Rollie isn't so sure... What's always amazed me about the Gang of Eight is they never, ever, found a optical film lab technician or optical film lab post production director to comment on what can and can't be done, provide a few compositing scenarios concerning the Zapruder film. 10 years and counting... NOTHING!

Except for Ray Fielding who called you and your work technically naive, and oh yea how about Rod Roderick, who said after viewing the film UNDER A MICROSCOPE, it was not altered.

You don't have clue, say-nothing

I believe anything you say? Surely you jest... And who is Rod Roderick? And whose microscope did he use and when did he view the alleged incamera Zapruder film, with whom and when, is there an affidavit stating such ANYWHERE?

... can you wannabes be a tad more specific? Say something a little meatier than the lone nut version of, "hey, my mother told me," perhaps?

Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant

to the assassination are:

...

Craig - photography

...

LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave...

Oh, and who determined you to be the elector of experts for the JFK assassination? I seem to recall Roland Zavada putting you in your place some years ago, right on this very forum...

Blair asked about people with technical expertise, the people I cited have relevant professional experience. If I missed anyone who posts here let me know. And your recollection regarding Zavada is incorrect, I have pointed this out to you several times. I'll send you $1000 if you can cite when he did.

Blair would do better surfing the internet for experts, asking here is utter foolishness. You're giving bad advice, Len. Unless of course Blair's just another wander in the dark looking for societal meaning in that 11/22/63 murder on the streets of Dallas. If so the wanderer, I applaud him. Here's some good advice: do your own research, come to your own conclusions--then publish... there's enough unpublished wannabe researchers posting to forums these days...

Frankly, I could care less about your bet, if you were Redd Foxx, then I might pay attention and only because I sat at a Las Vegas table with him a few times.

And it was Rollie Zavada who called me, Len. Not I him! Age has a way of clouding things over time Len, no surprise there.

All this Zapruder film alteration topic attention paid me, a guy who can't prove anything... you guys dropping the ball or what? go figure...

Richard... A little something I put together years ago, still relevant today. No one, not even Lapoon Lamson can refute this presentation with authority. Most Z-film alteration film debunkers simply do NOT understand (and that makes them nervous) the Art of Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1963/pre. 1963, aka Optical Film Printing...

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

LOL the correct title of the book is Techniques of Special Effects of Cinematography, David cited it repeatedly but its author said, "I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruder film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6096&page=4#entry55431

Let's try a get facts correct Len, you haven't a clue as to what was and what could or would pass for film composition scrutiny. It's amazing how beholden the author was to Rollie Zavada and KODAK. After all, he and the schools he worked for were recipients of much KODAK largess during the era... And Fielding's book, just another bump in the road and just another possible undoing of the WCR/SBT/LHO did it all by his lonesome foolishness... who'd a thunk.

So, survived scrutiny by whom, Len? The Warren Commission? If alteration was performed on the Z-film it was in support and to convince the WC of one shooter in Dealey Plaza that day. Want answers concerning film composition go to the glossary in Fielding's book, the SMPE periodical listings is all you need, right there in black and white....

Ya know the last time I spoke to Ray Fielding he said: I want no part, NO PART of a Zapruder film debate,end of discussion. Then Rollie calls me he going to Florida and talk with Fielding...perhaps old Rollie isn't so sure... What's always amazed me about the Gang of Eight is they never, ever, found a optical film lab technician or optical film lab post production director to comment on what can and can't be done, provide a few compositing scenarios concerning the Zapruder film. 10 years and counting... NOTHING!

So it's one shooter from the rear, from the TSBD no less.... a simple minded WCR conclusion, no Grassy Knoll, no ruskies, no cubans, no mob, no conspiracy and no right-wing whack jobs involved in Dallas that day-they think... just little old Lee Harvey Oswald a carrier of U2 secrets, disgruntled, wife beating defector to the USSR. That tripe isn't even worthy for Ed forum much let alone a dime novel...LMFAO!

And thanks for showing up, Lampoon Lamson was blowing the lone nut position badly!

...

Oh please grow up davie, you look sooo childish.

Its SOFTWARE davie, 10th graders use it.

There are LOTS of stills guys transitioning to motion dude. Welcome to reality 101.

And yea, a composite is just a composite. Traveling mattes? ROFLMAO. You do understand, don't you that the reason that they existed is for SPEED and making money FASTER?

My body of motion work? Lots of nice family stuff. Like I said I just play. Got my Blackmagic Pocket on pre-order. Another toy to play with. No desire to take the pro work away from my video friends. They need to eat too. If i was just starting my career, it would be a no brainer. I have all the work I need without adding video.

Forums? Which ones would that be davie? Oh wait, you need proof. ROFLMAO!

these transitioning photo's, who is paying them? Or doing just "family stuff" enough. Sounds like wannabes and we KNOW the world is full of them, right. Photog's looking to make it commercially are like actors wanting to make a living on stage... less than 2 percent get there and even at that, they need supplemental income to support themselves... you do know those kinda stat's don't you?

So in closing here, you have no motion work (film or AE digital) to show me or lurkers here, right? Which means you have no, zero, zip, nada compositing experience to base your protestations, nor any evidence to provide, correct? Yet you still profess, through friends you talked to, I know nothing about a certain subject matter concerning certain Zapruder film scenarios...

You dream false hope Craig, only in the land of the photo naive, sad!

The image compositior's job one is to make one believe what imagery puts forth, NOT, naive protestations about the imagery... So carry on consultant, consultant of what we know not! LMFAO!

PROOF, How about your own words...Search is your friend...

www.google.com/search?q=Craig+Lamson&oq=Craig+Lamson&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j62l2.6244j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

www.google.com/search?q=Craig+Lamson&oq=Craig+Lamson&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j62l2.6244j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#sclient=psy-ab&q=Craig+Lamson+photography+forums&oq=Craig+Lamson+photography+forums&gs_l=serp.3...62961.72825.0.73281.21.21.0.0.0.0.85.1474.21.21.0...0.0.0..1c.1.12.psy-ab.NpBO5fLY_vc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.cGE&fp=fbd1bee3f373cedb&biw=1622&bih=926

you're everywhere but no where, right? When do you find time to photograph buses?

Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant

to the assassination are:

...

Craig - photography

...

LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave...

Bring it on davie, but then again you don't have the 'chops'.

sitdown, you're a waste of time... bring what on? I'm waiting for YOUR proof your correspondence with Moe, Rollie Zavada and any other you deem necessary, with headers. Now if they request you not post proof of their correspondence here, simply say so. Then we can keep you in that good old tard-pit reserved for noise makers, of which there are many here these days....

The closer to Nov 2013 the more your compatriots seem overwrought and full of ill feelings. For something that happened 50 years ago, amazing... <sigh> Carry on Sluggo!

You are waiting for NOTHING davie. I've posted the the contents, and I'll NOT post their personal information. You can take it or leave it, I could care less.

That's how it works.

If ANYONE here needs to sit down its you say nothing davie.

Talk about a waste, why don't you get bac kto us when you actually SAY SOMETHING. Based on your track record that will be never.

dude, thank gawd you took the cop-out I threw, you're easy hon! Now, rumor has it Dr. John Costella may be in Dallas for the 50th (not as a presenter, but a tourist). Reasoning has something to do with those that can't quite wrap themselves around real world & things-physics, plus discussing his Univ.of Minn 2003 Zapruder film presentation(s). Can't guarantee cameras will be around, but I'm sure a place can be made for you and your widely publicized protestations. Up for it hon?

There's nothing like proving yourself to an audience, don't you agree, it does take a man, these days!

and YOU can't figure how THAT fixes a possible alteration time timeline? and YOU have whose word and documented PROOF (such as a chain of evidence document for the alleged Z-film) that Moe was handling the NARA housed, in-camera original Zapruder film, again?

What nonsense are you trying to get away with here....methinks your pulling hope from your rear-end, son... or bending alleged truth at the very least, and possiblyBOTH as you're prone to do.

Why not invest real money son, buy Adobe's After Effects software, get with the program and see what software closed all these optical film houses around the world... and you are a photo consultant? Consultant for what and to WHOM, Uncle Sam? LMFAO! Your case for non-alteration is getting weaker and weaker, and I can't prove it WAS altered--what a mess you lone nuts are in.

I have Moe's word, I have Zavada's word, I have Rodericks word.

Who's do you have davie. You gonna go with Costella , the PhD who can't even figure out parallax? ROFLMAO!

If you want to try and call me a xxxx davie, just do so, and then offer up your proof. I give the forum cops my permission for your to use that word towards me IF YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE IT.

You can't because you don't have any. What a weak play in your part. I understand you just got caught, told you are naive, and then spanked, but really, that's the best you have? Talk about playing it out of your backside...

AE? REALLY? Come on davie I HAVE AE, Premier, FC7, FCX, Resolve lite...

Time for you to give it up, you lost a long time ago.

That's why you are say nothing healy..

getting to you son? listen, you have all these words from all these folks, post them, show the entire world you're not a wannabe photo expert and photo consultant, it you have a digital record of their comments, emails etc... post them, certainly no one I know here believes you for one second... time to get off the pot dude, you've hid in fiction long enough....

Final Cut 7? Yeah, sure you do... so where's your body of video work residing these days?

And not surprising, Adobe After Effects is missing from you arsenal, obviously you didn't buy Adobe's studio video package, which includes After Effects as well as Illustrator. So is motion image compositing beyond your ken (what we're talking here, son)? Speak up.

ROFLMAO! I posted them davie, and you can choose to believe me or not. I don't really care what you think because are just a say nothing xxxxx.

Yea, Final Cut 7 and I see you can't read. I told you I had AE, along with the rest of the master collection. I play with video software for fun, and dude a composite is a composite, and unless you have forgotten motion is still just a very long string of STILLS. Lots of interesting differences but its still image making in the end.

And "photo consultant". ROFLMAO! My oh my are really are at the very end of your rope.

Sure you have AE uh-huh... lmao! Dude it's one of the most sophisticated pieces of software made, was so in its original form when created by COSA.

There isn't a successful still photographer that uses AE, to difficult, time consuming and thought processes too much like optical film composing... can't hide behind Photoshop here dude!

Remember the image compositor's job number one is: ta-da believability... the WC was sucker punched when it came to the Zapruder Film!

So,again, that body of work is where, these days...?

End of rope? What end of rope? Man, you're on most USENET photography forums, it's been long rumored folks that do that are either hustling work or building a legend...eh?

A composite is a composite? Simple as that? Never, especially when travelling mattes are concerned..... LMFAO!

Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant

to the assassination are:

...

Craig - photography

...

LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave...

Bring it on davie, but then again you don't have the 'chops'.

sitdown, you're a waste of time... bring what on? I'm waiting for YOUR proof your correspondence with Moe, Rollie Zavada and any other you deem necessary, with headers. Now if they request you not post proof of their correspondence here, simply say so. Then we can keep you in that good old tard-pit reserved for noise makers, of which there are many here these days....

The closer to Nov 2013 the more your compatriots seem overwrought and full of ill feelings. For something that happened 50 years ago, amazing... <sigh> Carry on Sluggo!

Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant

to the assassination are:

...

Craig - photography

...

LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave...

Oh, and who determined you to be the elector of experts for the JFK assassination? I seem to recall Roland Zavada putting you in your place some years ago, right on this very forum...

and YOU can't figure how THAT fixes a possible alteration time timeline? and YOU have whose word and documented PROOF (such as a chain of evidence document for the alleged Z-film) that Moe was handling the NARA housed, in-camera original Zapruder film, again?

What nonsense are you trying to get away with here....methinks your pulling hope from your rear-end, son... or bending alleged truth at the very least, and possiblyBOTH as you're prone to do.

Why not invest real money son, buy Adobe's After Effects software, get with the program and see what software closed all these optical film houses around the world... and you are a photo consultant? Consultant for what and to WHOM, Uncle Sam? LMFAO! Your case for non-alteration is getting weaker and weaker, and I can't prove it WAS altered--what a mess you lone nuts are in.

I have Moe's word, I have Zavada's word, I have Rodericks word.

Who's do you have davie. You gonna go with Costella , the PhD who can't even figure out parallax? ROFLMAO!

If you want to try and call me a xxxx davie, just do so, and then offer up your proof. I give the forum cops my permission for your to use that word towards me IF YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE IT.

You can't because you don't have any. What a weak play in your part. I understand you just got caught, told you are naive, and then spanked, but really, that's the best you have? Talk about playing it out of your backside...

AE? REALLY? Come on davie I HAVE AE, Premier, FC7, FCX, Resolve lite...

Time for you to give it up, you lost a long time ago.

That's why you are say nothing healy..

getting to you son? listen, you have all these words from all these folks, post them, show the entire world you're not a wannabe photo expert and photo consultant, it you have a digital record of their comments, emails etc... post them, with headers, why are you scared to do so? certainly no one I know here believes you for one second... time to get off the pot dude, you've hid in fiction long enough....

Final Cut 7? Yeah, sure you do... so where's your body of video work residing these days?

And not surprising, Adobe After Effects is missing from you arsenal, obviously you didn't buy Adobe's studio video package, which includes After Effects as well as Illustrator. So is motion image compositing beyond your ken (what we're talking here, son)? Speak up.

...

so i wouldn't get to high and mighty about it being case closed on alteration using your theory here.

good work , nice presentation anyway.

lmao.... yeah thanks it was 1999 presentation.... the question was: was it possible to alter the Z-film in 1963-64. Was the equipment, know-how, expertise and above all time available to alter the film by mid February 1964. The answer is a resounding, YES! How it was done is irrelevant...

a definition (World dictionary) of alteration:

— n 1. an adjustment, change, or modification 2.

the act of altering or state of being altered

I draw your attention to #1 above.

Based on Abraham Zapruder's own WC testimony-- the alleged Zapruder film has been altered.

As Rollie Zavada once told me: he won't comment of the alleged Z-film content, he's not qualified to comment on possible special effects cinematography... aka film post-production effects. Wonder if he told that to Lampoon?

one other thing...

this image? this image here?

this was done in camera..not by compositing.

What is this reference to "chops" that so many LN's seem to bring up so often? Is this an American form of slang? It is such an odd term and I don't recall hearing it prior to becoming involved with JFK forums.

Craig Lampoon Lamson was one of the Gang of Eight trying to put down Zapruder film alteration scenarios, especially those that came from the 2003 Univ. of Minnesota, Duluth symposium on the Zapruder Film. He's been chasing his tail ever since. You'd think after 10 years they'd find a Hollywood type to shred my simple presentation... he can't they're on my side of the question. 'Poon' claims to be a dark room maven, unfortunately he's never even seen a film optical film printer, nor, based by his comments here and elsewhere, worked a film lab of any type... so the poor guy is completely lost when the alteration conversation comes up...

He reverts to holding Dr. Josiah Thompson hand and position when Rollie Zavada comes up.... what the dude won't tell you is Rollie Zavada has acknowledged he has no clue concerning the content of the Zapruder film, about the only thing Zavada can tell us is the film he looked at (the alleged Zapruder Film) is KODAK film. That's it!

Hell, Roland Zavada was under the impression that UofMinn. Zapruderalteration discussion was based on 8mm to 8mm optical printing with no blow ups... Neither Zavada, Lamson or the remaining Gang of Eight members have the chops to even discuss the topic, much let alone to tell experienced image compositors what compositing possibilites are.

The old adage, give a photog a camera, access to Photoshop (the software) and they think they're Ansel Adams re-incarnated or they have chops....

Poor davie, ever worked an Oxberry ammimation camera? I have. Optical printer? Yep? Spent any time running and doing process control on cine, RT, tube and Dip and Dunk E3, E6, and C41 davie boy? I have. How about EP2 and RA4?: How many process cameras have you used? Made any large format (and by that I mean 11x14 film) composites that need to withstand inspection FOREVER as a still frame? I have. Photoshop, yea what a wonderful invention. I have enjoyed it since V2 and a Kodak DCS200....

Those are my chops davie, not to mention my decades of shooting advertising stills. You got yours by shooting ENG and repairing the gear? ROFLMAO!

Now lets find that Hollywood type again to refute your little scam.

Zavada:

"I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve."

Finally lets add Moe Weitzman to the list. You know another film guy who had the original in his hands....sent me this in a series of very nice emails...

"The fools who think hardware or skill existed back then to alter 8mm film back then are living in la la land. I gave a talk to the SMPTE on 8mm film capabilities once. Cameras were the problem then not film. No two single 8mm cameras even from the

same manufacturer could place successive frame in registration. Later magazine loads helped some. I recommended

Rollie Zavada to the JFK museum when the question of edge numbers on 35mm blowup footage duplicates arose."

"I had the film in my possession twice. The first time commissioned by time life and

the second time by a network. The first time Ed Willett who worked for Oxberry machine recommended me

because I had camera shuttles in 8mm. I jury rigged it to use as a projector shuttle but I had no sprocket

advance and had to use 16mm (same distance between sprocket holes except twice a many on double 8mm).

To answer your question, on both occasions I had original film definitely not a duplicate. If it were duplicated

to read as an original it would have had to been done on an Optical printer so it could read properly thru the

base. There did not exist at the time an 8mm projection shuttle. And even if it did exist why did they bother

to put a splice where it was torn when a lab tried to make a contact print. the film was the original both times

I had it in my possession."

and YOU can't figure how THAT fixes a possible alteration time timeline? and YOU have whose word and documented PROOF (such as a chain of evidence document for the alleged Z-film) that Moe was handling the NARA housed, in-camera original Zapruder film, again?

What nonsense are you trying to get away with here....methinks your pulling hope from your rear-end, son... or bending alleged truth at the very least, and possiblyBOTH as you're prone to do.

Why not invest real money son, buy Adobe's After Effects software, get with the program and see what software closed all these optical film houses around the world... and you are a photo consultant? Consultant for what and to WHOM, Uncle Sam? LMFAO! Your case for non-alteration is getting weaker and weaker, and I can't prove it WAS altered--what a mess you lone nuts are in.

What is this reference to "chops" that so many LN's seem to bring up so often? Is this an American form of slang? It is such an odd term and I don't recall hearing it prior to becoming involved with JFK forums.

Craig Lampoon Lamson was one of the Gang of Eight trying to put down Zapruder film alteration scenarios, especially those that came from the 2003 Univ. of Minnesota, Duluth symposium on the Zapruder Film. He's been chasing his tail ever since. You'd think after 10 years they'd find a Hollywood type to shred my simple presentation... he can't they're on my side of the question. 'Poon' claims to be a dark room maven, unfortunately he's never even seen a film optical film printer, nor, based by his comments here and elsewhere, worked a film lab of any type... so the poor guy is completely lost when the alteration conversation comes up...

He reverts to holding Dr. Josiah Thompson hand and position when Rollie Zavada comes up.... what the dude won't tell you is Rollie Zavada has acknowledged he has no clue concerning the content of the Zapruder film, about the only thing Zavada can tell us is the film he looked at (the alleged Zapruder Film) is KODAK film. That's it!

Hell, Roland Zavada was under the impression that UofMinn. Zapruderalteration discussion was based on 8mm to 8mm optical printing with no blow ups... Neither Zavada, Lamson or the remaining Gang of Eight members have the chops to even discuss the topic, much let alone to tell experienced image compositors what compositing possibilites are.

The old adage, give a photog a camera, access to Photoshop (the software) and they think they're Ansel Adams re-incarnated or they have chops....

Richard... A little something I put together years ago, still relevant today. No one, not even Lapoon Lamson can refute this presentation with authority. Most Z-film alteration film debunkers simply do NOT understand (and that makes them nervous) the Art of Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1963/pre. 1963, aka Optical Film Printing...

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

Lets instead go TO AUTHORITY to debunk the silly video technician dave healy

Zavada to Horne:

You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the

presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s

May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of

SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.

In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he

was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera

and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the

types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears

to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were

working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability

environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm

film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special

optical effects changes.(pg 15)

Horne to Zavada:

Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology.

Zavada nails the silly video repairman dave healy to the wall...

I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

you sound like a broken down old record-fossil, Lampoon... Zavada to Healy: "yes, KODAK manufactured double 8 film with no edge markings.." use your imagination toots..... whoops, with no film-image compositing experience you haven't a clue do ya?

It would benefit your inexperienced, lone nut teammates and yourself if your experience extended a bit further than simpleminded Adobe Photoshop layers... you need a full understanding of the craftmanship and compositing skills of 1963 optical film lab artists, not to mention glass painters.. Carry with the disinfo, thank you -- Management LMAO!

Richard,

I purchased a camera identical to that of Zapruder a number of years ago and I also purchased ALL of the remaining Kodachrome film stock in existence at the time. Kodak has since discontinued Kodachrome production and processing. I filmed the last possible sequence from the Zapruder pedestal on November 22nd, 2010 that could still be processed. History in the making... Now, while it's true that Ektachrome film would suffice for the same purposes, it's also true that the nay sayers would possibly, if not most certainly, have discredited the experiment if the FILM STOCK did not match Zapruder's Kodachrome--even as irrelevant as that is. So, I took no chances.

Suffice it to say that a number of studies are imminent. My recent surgery has delayed the process, but some progress has been made.

I did not have the opportunity to conduct the experiment that you are suggesting because it is very difficult--if not impossible--to get the City of Dallas to cooperate. After all, Elm Street is heavily trafficked and such a project would have required the street to have been shut down for a period of time by the DPD. However, I think your experiment could be conducted using Ektachrome film and could perhaps be set on a less trafficked street.

It is also important to note that restricting the experiment to 1963 technology is harder that it sounds. Much of that technology exists only in the memory of those who worked with it 50 years ago, but by now it has passed into the void of obsolescence.

Having said all of that, I think your suggestion is instructive--albeit challenging to accomplish.

Greg, I appreciate your response. What I had in mind was not a duplication of DP, but an approximation showing a car at about the distance of the limo from Zapruder moving in the same direction, etc. etc. Doesn't have to be Dallas especially. Can an 8 mm film be altered the way the alterationists say it was....that was my only point. Obviously using current technology it could. As to 1963 era technology, doesn't Douglas Horne describe how it would have been done? Optical printers, traveling mattes and such? I've seen documentaries showing how effects were achieved in the silent era - surely there are techies who could explain what was possible in the 60s.

Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Anscochrome, who cares? This would only be a demonstration, not courtroom worthy proof. I'm agnostic on the subject of alteration, but if it can be demonstrated it was at least possible, wouldn't that be a valuable contribution to the discussion? Likewise, if it can't be done, well......

Richard... A little something I put together years ago, still relevant today. No one, not even Lapoon Lamson can refute this presentation with authority. Most Z-film alteration film debunkers simply do NOT understand (and that makes them nervous) the Art of Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1963/pre. 1963, aka Optical Film Printing...

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

...

There is no lack of debris at the back of the head. It is easily seen. Please try again.

akin to saying black levels (contrast ratio) aren't crushed in the "alleged" Zapruder film.... you get back in line and please, try again!

Looks like another professor on the cia payroll....my tax dollars at work ....makes me sick.

Yeah, right. Anybody who has the gall to think Oswald was guilty (or "no conspiracy") is automatically labeled "CIA".

Makes me sick.

The last LHO did it all by his lonesome book you hyped, turned into the biggest book publishing failure in the history of book publishing itself! Great track record there hon, so, keep on hyping lmao!

Craig,

Do you think JFK was slammed back and to his left by a neuro-muscular reaction to being hit in his head just once? Kind of like that goat on youtube?

--Tommy

I don't play that game Tommy. You should know that by now.

Tink's waterboy does not play games.... why folks waste time on this subject matter with you is amazing... lmao!

I'm glad you posted this, David. Look at the piece of brain matter down by the hairline. Now, look just above it, at the 1 o'clock position if the brain matter was at the center of a clock. There's the EOP entrance wound, EXACTLY where Humes--and everyone else noting an entrance wound at the autopsy--said it was.

Now, why was this entrance wound erased from history by the Clark Panel? That's right. The Clark Panel was asked to debunk the stuff in Tink's book--including that the bullet supposedly traveled low to high within the skull, without destroying the brain in between. So they moved the entrance wound to someplace more compatible with the single-assassin conclusion--like the dried blood in the cowlick--where NO ONE at the autopsy saw such a wound.

There's no entry wound at the "1 o'clock" position above the white splotch, Pat. You're seeing things that you WANT to be there--but aren't.

In addition, as I mentioned previously, neither the white splotch or your make-believe "1 o'clock" entry wound are located "above" or even "slightly above" the EOP. And the autopsy report (twice!) clearly indicates that the entry wound on the back of JFK's head was located "above" the EOP.

Also -- Isn't it remarkable, Pat, that the thing in the "red spot" photo that you claim is merely "dried blood" can look so much like an entry hole for a 6.5-mm. bullet? Amazing coincidence, huh? (Or did the Clark boys just draw in the red spot themselves?)

Plus -- Isn't it also remarkable that the red spot just happens to PERFECTLY LAY OVER THE TOP of the entry hole in the underlying skull of the President, per the Clark Panel? (More Clark lies here, Pat?).....

"On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance." -- Clark Panel Report

Also hear the HSCA talk to Dr. Finck about how the red spot in the photo perfectly lines up with the entry in the underlying skull (just a co-inky, I guess) --- 1978 Interview With Pierre Finck.

given 49 years, and this is the best you can do? LMAO! I say, lone nut drivel! Underhanded way of avoiding: 'did a conspiracy murder JFK on the street of Dallas Texas on Nov 22nd 1963?' What say you Von Pein? Or, are you going to continue playing; avoid THAT subject at all costs?